Why are extreme libertarian-capitalists so unproductive?

[IcarusAngel]

How come extreme, right-wing libertarian capitalists (who've been around since at least the 1900s) contribute nothing to society?

These assholes just seem to be economists or something, none of them smart.

Some intellectual libertarian-socialists, or people who were nearly libertarian-socialist: Antonie Pannekoek (Astronomer); Bertrand Russell (mathematician, philosopher and logician); Proudhon (philosopher, artist); Bookchin (philosopher); Kropotkin (anarchist-philosopher); Rudolf Rocker (anarchist historian); Godwin (English Political philosopher); Bakunin (russian anarchist philosopher); David Graeber (Anthropologist); Noam Chomsky (Linguist, Philosopher, public intellectual, computer science); Howard Zinn (Historian, Political Scientist); Albert Einstein (theoretical physicist); Richard Stallman (Computer Programmer); Paul Goodman (intellectual and poet; not to be confused with the musician); Tolstoy (Russian writer); Shusui Kotoku (japanese anarchist writer and journalist); Peter Neville (Sociologist); George Orwell (writer, literary critic); de Cleyre (Feminist); Goldman (feminist, writer); Rousseau (Philosopher, famous enlightenment thinker, founder of the "autobiography"); Castoriadis (philosopher, economist, psychoanalyst), Robin Hahnel (Professor of Economics at AU); Michael Albert (economist).

As you can see, libertarian-socialists have a long list of intellectuals, ranging from writers and painters to astronomers and mathematicians.

Libertarian-capitalists, the extreme "real" capitalists are economists like:
Milton Friednman, Ludwig von Mises, Brian Caplan, Hayek, et al.

It figures they would be subsidized by the government instead of producing real work.

[COVARE]

is this incredibly biased or what

[IcarusAngel]

is this incredibly biased or what

How is it biased?

I simply named some intellectual libertarian-socialists, but there are no intellectual libertarian-capitalists to name.

Furthermore, I didn't even include all the intellectual Marxists that have made contributions to mathematicis or philosophy or social science, such as Marx, Engles, Marcuse, and so on. If I did, the list would be far longer.

You extreme libertarian capitalists are useless to society, and you should shut-up until you produce something of value.

[COVARE]

yes that is entirely biased because you were LOOKING for socialists thus clouding realty and failed to look at others. there are a ton of capitalists if you will who contributed muchly to specific fields and you've left them out because you want to further your position that socialism is better, wth?

[IcarusAngel]

yes that is entirely biased because you were LOOKING for socialists thus clouding realty and failed to look at others. there are a ton of capitalists if you will who contributed muchly to specific fields and you've left them out because you want to further your position that socialism is better, wth?

Of course there are smart capitalists - I'm talking about the EXTREME capitalists here.

The ones who talk about self-ownership all the time, the libertarians, the Randbots (and no I don't consider Ayn Rand's literary canon to be much of a contribution), and so on.

However, these "libertarian-socialists" are extreme socialists, and yet they were also productive.

[jake williams]

This type of person is unproductive because they basically hate society and other people, and it really is almost that simple. You can listen to some of these people talking about how love doesn't exist, and their relationship with their wife (because this group is something like 90 or 95% men) is based on an "exchange of resources" or something like that. It really is a horrid psychopathology.


ed: I should specify, just to be sure, that I'm referring to a certain type of extreme right-wing "libertarian" type of person, though you see bits of this in many more moderate capitalists.

[IcarusAngel]

I agree. Not only are extreme libertarians stupid, and liars, they are unproductive to top it off. Most of them spend their time spamming the internet in support of Ron Paul or something from their mother's basement, the rest are economists.

They hate humanity and believe people are genuinely evil, thus they hate themselves.

And yes, they also believe love doesn't exist. It figures they wouldn't have very many books out in literature, which can help people understand human emotion and feelings and beauty.

Vile human beings, to be sure, and unproductive, but that goes to show how beneficit leftists are, because these people would still be given resources under leftism, even though these libertarians wouldn't do anything with them.

[COVARE]

jammoe you dont even make sense

[IcarusAngel]

His post made perfect sense.

Extreme libertarians, especially American-libertarians, hate humanity, teach that people are evil, and are against democracy and freedom and true individualism.

Individualism is not forcing everybody to accept your definition of "property rights" and allowing corporate monopolies with no workers' rights. You are a slave in a corporation.

[COVARE]

you seem to have a warped defination there. as a socialist, what does "individualism" mean to you? you dont support it, you support the collective, not the individual, which is like a corporpation. no individuality under socialism.

[IcarusAngel]

you seem to have a warped defination there. as a socialist, what does "individualism" mean to you? you dont support it, you support the collective, not the individual, which is like a corporpation. no individuality under socialism.

LOL. Corporations are anti-individual. You can make requests in them, but you could do the same thing in totalitarian societies.

Individualism is about doing what you want, without being forced into work. It is not about selling yourself to a pre-determined capitalistic market.

The capitalistic contracts are very anti-individual. Most right-wingers are authoritarian and hierarchical, including libertarians.

You're against the individual's right to choose his own path.

[COVARE]

so you're saying people shouldn't be forced to work? so you'll provide them with food ans shelter and all that without them working? as individualism is, i support the freedom for people to make choices (with decency and morality) without being tied down by the collective's wishes.

[IcarusAngel]

Forcing people to work is slavery. Only you would require people to "work" to be given the needs to survive even though there is plenty to go around.

If people want to stay in their house and grow their own food, they should be able to, and the community, in communism, would indeed by the one who gives them the house. The community is also the one who protects them from invaders.

The community in capitalism is the one who protects the corporations theft and private property.

But like I said, only you would want to force people to work, which is slavery.

[danyboy27]

Forcing people to work is slavery. Only you would require people to "work" to be given the needs to survive even though there is plenty to go around.

If people want to stay in their house and grow their own food, they should be able to, and the community, in communism, would indeed by the one who gives them the house. The community is also the one who protects them from invaders.

The community in capitalism is the one who protects the corporations theft and private property.

But like I said, only you would want to force people to work, which is slavery.

slavery
Slaves are held against their will from the time of their capture, purchase, or birth, and are deprived of the right to leave, to refuse to work, or to receive compensation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remuneration) (such as wages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wages)) in return for their labor. As such, slavery is one form of unfree labor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labour).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Capitalist libertarians are upset that they don't have the "stuff" to become the top class, so they break down the state until it serves their needs - but it's still kept exploitive.

Hey, I can break the pattern! Ayn Rand was a writer. Well, she crapped out a thousand pages of reactionary propaganda and called it fiction... :laugh:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

you seem to have a warped defination there. as a socialist, what does "individualism" mean to you? you dont support it, you support the collective, not the individual, which is like a corporpation. no individuality under socialism.
That's a false conclusion. Individualism is not diametrically opposed to collective use of resources, nor do most of us disagree with having people live outside of collectives. You can't recreate feudal, slave, or capitalist society, but if you want to snub out communism for the rest of your days, go ahead.

[Os Cangaceiros]

One libertarian who was actually kind of cool was Robert A. Heinlein.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

One libertarian who was actually kind of cool was Robert A. Heinlein.

Heinlein was a genius; he made a distinction between socialism and the Soviet Union and rarely - if ever - attacked the former. A lot of his philosophy even came from Marxism and anarchism. Too bad the modern day libertarian movement can't inherit this guy's traits. I'd also love to see sci-fi return to its heightened glory.

But Agora, do you know if he ever articulated his precise beliefs? He could have been a non-capitalist market libertarian. :)

[IcarusAngel]

I've heard bad things about Heinlein, but I'll check out some of his work.

We have our own science fiction/fantasy writers, and good fiction writers. Jack London and Orwell have some stuff sympathetic to the libertarian-left tradition.

http://web.ukonline.co.uk/benjaminbeck/anarchysf/a.htm

Many of these books as well have a connection with Libertarian-socialism.

Huxley, often considered a brilliant writer, said that his vision of a future society is one with Georgian economics under kropotkinesque politics.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

This thread is delicious. I'm usually pushed away from character bombs, but the sickening amount of support Ron Paul got this election cycle makes me throw all ethical obligations out the window.

I think it's interesting that outside of David Friedman, Lew Rockwell, and Murray Rothbard, I don't know of any popular anarchist who wasn't a left-libertarian. And I'm skeptical most people would know who any of these people are compared to Noam Chomsky. I'm not even sure Rothbard had a fucking clue what he believed at the end of his life when he started backing the theocrat and racist Pat Buchanan. At one time - while trying to reach out to the Left - the guy said 50% subsidization was grounds for collectivization, but nothing less.

:laugh:

Granted I'm not very rehearsed in all the names of right-wing apologists, but I think I've covered the main contributors to anarcho-capitalism. At least Ayn Rand and Von Mises had the audacity to admit their systems required a state with rigid demands for property protection, although once again most libertarians - Henry George, Peter Kropotkin, Bakunin, Goldman, Debs, Luxemburg, Tucker, Proudhon - were squarely anti-capitalist and identified within leftism.

Hey, I'm all in favor of new ideas, even if I think they're dead wrong, but right-libertarians need to come to the realization that they can't adopt historical figures and terms whenever a new opportunity arises. The Left needs to continue its PR campaign against people like Ron Paul bastardizing the term libertarian as he rants about marriage equality and immigration.

[Self-Owner]

I agree. Not only are extreme libertarians stupid, and liars, they are unproductive to top it off. Most of them spend their time spamming the internet in support of Ron Paul or something from their mother's basement, the rest are economists.

They hate humanity and believe people are genuinely evil, thus they hate themselves.

And yes, they also believe love doesn't exist. It figures they wouldn't have very many books out in literature, which can help people understand human emotion and feelings and beauty.

Vile human beings, to be sure, and unproductive, but that goes to show how beneficit leftists are, because these people would still be given resources under leftism, even though these libertarians wouldn't do anything with them.

It's pretty scary that you actually believe all this. I know you hate libertarians, that much is obvious, but really?

[Bud Struggle]

It's pretty scary that you actually believe all this. I know you hate libertarians, that much is obvious, but really?

There is a lot of pent up angst around here--isn't there?:lol:

[freakazoid]

Wow... just wow. :rolleyes:

[IcarusAngel]

Wow... just wow. :rolleyes:


News flash: there are far more libertarian-socialists and people with left-libertarian beliefs than your fascist, neo-nazi friends in the "free-state movement" who want to overturn civil rights legislation and ban a woman's right to choose, just like you do.

Libertarian-Socialists are smarter, and have made more contributions to humanity than the crypto-fascists you support.

[IcarusAngel]

It's pretty scary that you actually believe all this. I know you hate libertarians, that much is obvious, but really?


Do you have a point?

[Flash]

Why would you go after Libertarians who dont' even make up 10% of America's population and oppose American Imperialism when you could be going after the Neo-Conservatives and Neo-Liberals in control of both parties?



neo-nazi friends in the "free-state movement" who want to overturn civil rights legislation and ban a woman's right to choose, just like you do.
Nazism or National Socialism is closer to Communism than to Libertarianism.

[IcarusAngel]

Nazism is closer to capitalism because of the inequality and because of the protection of capitalism - this is why many libertarians supported fascist dictatorships.

And I go after Libertarians because it is the current, right-wing fad, just as Nazism was so long ago in Germany.

I've destroyed the credibility of several prominent libertarians on the net.

[EvigLidelse]

Libertarian-capitalists, the extreme "real" capitalists are economists like:
Milton Friednman, Ludwig von Mises, Brian Caplan, Hayek, et al.

It figures they would be subsidized by the government instead of producing real work.

They're all thinkers that produce thoughts, systems and ideas rather than pure work for the people. A few of these actually helped the market economy get in to a few parts of this world, and actually refining it.


Libertarian-Socialists are smarter

Ehm.. okay? Well, yeah.. maybe. It's probably because what they're thinking of is more innovative and complex, while other Libertarian thinkers think more in ways of raising thoughts rather than trying to create a new innovative system. The thing is that I don't really see how you measure "smart" in this case?

[Comrade B]

Capitalists expect to be served. They harvest the seed that you have planted. Their labor is half and their profits crush yours.
Many libertarian capitalists are petty want to be aristocrats, or they are gun toting imbeciles. They see themselves as superior, and care very little for improving anything for anyone else. They thrive on being unproductive.

To those who say that he "searched" for productive socialist libertarians, care to mention some productive capitalist libertarians?

[freakazoid]

News flash: there are far more libertarian-socialists and people with left-libertarian beliefs than your fascist, neo-nazi friends in the "free-state movement" who want to overturn civil rights legislation and ban a woman's right to choose, just like you do.

Libertarian-Socialists are smarter, and have made more contributions to humanity than the crypto-fascists you support.

Grow the fuck up. Libertarians would fight any neo-nazi that would try to take over, in case you were to stupid to know, libertarians actually believe in a minimalist government. How can you honestly fucking believe that they wish to take away a womans right to choose? And "just like I do"!? Shut the fuck up you lying sack of shit. "Libertarian-socialists are smarter"? You sound like a racist to me.

[IcarusAngel]

Is that why Milton Friedman and his Chicago boy friends DIRECTLY aided and adviced the brutal Pinochet regime, who tortured leftists and political dissidents? Is that why von Mises supported Hitler over the the communists in Nazi Germany.

And "minimalist government" my fucking ass. Protecting the slave owners != to "minimalist government" any more in a capitalist society than it is in colonial slavery. By your standards chattel slavery loving America was the perfect government.

Many Libertarians are also racist (looks up Rushton, Murray, et al., who continue to promote now discredited racial ideas) and the last three Libertarian Party presidential candidates were pro-life.

You've shown your true intentions as a supporter of the libertarians. You couldn't give a damn about the true nature of libertarians, and are promoting tyranny.

Knock it off, and get to work.

[IcarusAngel]

Here it is, straight from the horse's mouth:

http://anti-state.com/forum/index.php?board=6;action=display;threadid=15999


Libertarians, and even anarcho-capitalists, admitted they're prefer dictatorship (monarchy) to democracy.

Notice how even the supposed "anarchists" there favor fascism, monarchism, etc., over democracy.

The friends freakazoid keeps.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

becuase they are capitalist. and how do you mesure productivity?

[IcarusAngel]

becuase they are capitalist.

This is an interesting opinion, but let's make it clear it's not my opinion.

I'm saying the Randroid libertarians are like robots; I'm saying the extreme libertarians are unproductive for the same reason most other cults are pretty unproductive: and that is because cult like activity harms human creativity and action.


and how do you mesure productivity?

We who are true socialists (i.e. non freakazoid) better learn how to measure productivity real quick, as socialism is about contributions to the public good.

Here, however, I'm using the more vague definition of a contribution: contributions to humanity.

There is no question this literature and scientific work was of great importance to humanity.

The literature, to help people enjoy life, and the science, to help people understand life, which obviously led to advancements that helped make life easier, anyway.

[Self-Owner]

Is that why Milton Friedman and his Chicago boy friends DIRECTLY aided and adviced the brutal Pinochet regime, who tortured leftists and political dissidents? Is that why von Mises supported Hitler over the the communists in Nazi Germany.

This is such bullshit. Friedman spent all of an hour with Pinochet, after the coup had occurred, and he did so in order to promote the cause of economic freedom - which is strongly positively correlated with political freedom. Not that authoritarian fuckwits like you give a damn about that. Ironically enough Friedman spent more time with the Chinese Communists than he did with the Chileans, which suggests that if you really cared about tyranny your emphasis would be reversed.

Von Mises was, of course, Jewish so I'll take any claim that he supported Hitler with a pinch of salt in the lack of any evidence, thank you very much.

But the really ironic thing is that, even if your ridiculous accusations were true, you'd still be condemning the whole of the libertarian movement on the basis of 2 members. How would you feel if people condemned the whole socialist movement on the actions of Stalin and Pol Pot (I'm assuming you're not sufficiently shameless to be an apologist for either, though I might be wrong,)


And "minimalist government" my fucking ass. Protecting the slave owners != to "minimalist government" any more in a capitalist society than it is in colonial slavery. By your standards chattel slavery loving America was the perfect government.


I realize that actually engaging with the positions of your opponents is hard work compared to knocking down straw men, but it's what the grown ups do. What libertarian on the planet is in favour of the government supporting slave owners?! Are you even in touch with reality?


I've destroyed the credibility of several prominent libertarians on the net.


From the evidence regarding your debating skills here, the only credibility you've destroyed is your own.

[IcarusAngel]

He (Friedman) adviced a fascist regime; that's enough for me to show he's crazy. Fascists cannot be changed. Friedman's boneheaded ideas led to a 25% unemployment rate, and his policies in Chile have reversed. The austrian school is a dying movement in economics and is completely dead in philosophy and logic.

Many other Libertarians openly support racial institutions like those founded by Rushton who try and prove that blacks are genetically inferior.

And when I say "destroyed the credibility" - I mean I caught them in blatant lies - such as one claiming he was a scientist of the highest order.

I don't care about your opinion of my 'arguments' - my arguments are clearly sound, as evidenced by the fact that no one has refuted them.

And how are they straw man arguments?

The only straw men here are your own. In fact, they're lies. No libertarian-socialist ever aided or adviced Pol Pot.

And by slavery, I mean the slavery of corporate institutions. The kind of "wage slavery" that the original libertarians talked about.

[freakazoid]

Don't know anything about these people so I did a quick look up on wiki.


Is that why Milton Friedman and his Chicago boy friends DIRECTLY aided and adviced the brutal Pinochet regime

"Friedman defended his role in Chile on the grounds that, in his opinion, the move towards open market policies not only improved the economic situation in Chile but also contributed to the softening of Pinochet's rule and to the eventual transition to a democratic government in 1990. That idea followed from Capitalism and Freedom, in which he declared that economic freedom is not only desirable in itself but is also a necessary condition for political freedom. He stressed that the lectures he gave in Chile were the same lectures he later gave in China (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Republic_of_China) and other socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism) states.[42] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman#cite_note-41) In the 2000 PBS documentary The Commanding Heights, Friedman continued to claim that criticism over his role in Chile missed his main point that freer markets led to freer people, and that Chile's unfree economy had led to the military government. Friedman argued that the economic liberalization he advocated led to the end of military rule and a free Chile."

So it sounds to me like he didn't "directly aid and advance" the Pinochet regime.


Is that why von Mises supported Hitler over the the communists in Nazi Germany.

"To avoid the influence of Nazis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis) in his Austrian homeland, and fearing repression due to his Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish) ancestry,"

So I don't get where you are getting that he supported Hitler.


Many Libertarians are also racist

And there are also "communists" who are racist, what is your point?


And "minimalist government" my fucking ass. Protecting the slave owners

Libertarians are anti-slavery.


and the last three Libertarian Party presidential candidates were pro-life.

It would seem that most libertarians view the Libertarian party the same way the RCP is viewed by most here.


You've shown your true intentions as a supporter of the libertarians.

My true intentions as a supporter of the libertarians, http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-we-make-t87469/index.html?t=87469

[IcarusAngel]

But the really ironic thing is that, even if your ridiculous accusations were true, you'd still be condemning the whole of the libertarian movement on the basis of 2 members

A nice straw man argument by this "self-indoctrinated" here.

These aren't just "two libertarians" - they're libertarians who are considered the leaders of the libertarian movement.

Libertarianism isn't like socialism where everybody defines it, only the libertarians themselves get to define it, and what they've come up with is nothing short of crypto-fascism.

[IcarusAngel]

Friedman defended his role in Chile on the grounds that, in his opinion, the move towards open market policies not only improved the economic situation in Chile but also contributed to the softening of Pinochet's rule and to the eventual transition to a democratic government in 1990.

This is not what happened. Friedman's advice increased unemployment and with unemployment comes resentment and hostility, and, under a dictatorial regime, this triggers more oppression.

His willingness to work with fascistic regimes just to try and prove market dictatorships were better than socialistic ones shows to me that he had no morality at all.

Pinochet's regime collapses because of growing opposition and the fact that it was clearly a failure.


To avoid the influence of Nazis (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazis) in his Austrian homeland, and fearing repression due to his Jewish (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish) ancestry,"

So I don't get where you are getting that he supported Hitler.


Many blacks also supported the confederates, so it's not surprising to see jews also supporting Nazis.


And there are also "communists" who are racist, what is your point?

I'm not talking about "communists," i'm talking about libertarian-socialists.

Which libertarian-socialist were "racist."


Libertarians are anti-slavery.

Private property is theft, and thus, slavery.

Power over a man's subsistence, what occurs when you have a lot of property, is power over his will. Libertarians allow this by rejecting equality, thus they support the "right" of the rich to enslave the poor.

Have you ever read Karl Marx, or the original libertarians like proudhon? Property is theft.

[freakazoid]

We who are true socialists (i.e. non freakazoid)

You don't know shit about me so shut the fuck up.


He (Friedman) adviced a fascist regime;

Wow, so "advising" a fascist regime is the same as supporting?


No libertarian-socialist ever aided or adviced Pol Pot.

How many here support Stalin?


don't care about your opinion of my 'arguments' - my arguments are clearly sound, as evidenced by the fact that no one has refuted them.

LOL, a few minutes of not being refuted and that means that your arguments are clearly sound!?

[IcarusAngel]

You don't know shit about me so shut the fuck up.

I've read your anti-abortion posts and your christian anarchism. I asked you if you were a libertarian-socialist once, and you declined to answer.

It's nobody's fault but your own if people misconstrue your political beliefs considering the fact that they are muddled and ignorant.

By the way, which anarchist authors have you read that are supportive of allowing people to own as much private property as they want?

Which anarchist did NOT call that slavery.


Wow, so "advising" a fascist regime is the same as supporting?

Yes, it is. To an anarchist it certainly would be. You cannot "make better" a fascist regime, the only way to do that is to dismantle it and bring some democracy in there, at which point it would cease being fascist.

Friedman was trying to show that fascist regimes could be more beneficial than the totalitarian socialist ones.


How many here support Stalin?

Zero. There are zero libertarian-socialists here who support Stalin.

And Stalin himself hated anarchists and vice versa. Get your facts straight freakazoid.


LOL, a few minutes of not being refuted and that means that your arguments are clearly sound!?

If they weren't sound a libertarian would have spoken up by now.

The only thing we have is self-indoctrinated trolling, and throwing out names of fallacies without understanding them, and your pointless blather.

[freakazoid]

Libertarianism isn't like socialism where everybody defines it, only the libertarians themselves get to define it, and what they've come up with is nothing short of crypto-fascism.

So everybody gets to define communism/anarchism?


Many blacks also supported the confederates, so it's not surprising to see jews also supporting Nazis.

I see that you have fallen under the illusion that the civil war was about slavery. Poor you.


I'm not talking about "communists," i'm talking about libertarian-socialists.

So you are anti-communist?


Private property is theft, and thus, slavery.

So you are purposely miss-wording when you say they support slavery. Because they do not support slavery in the way that most people mean it by. You are a deceiver. Do I really need to go into why they believe in private property for you? Also do you support taxes?

[Self-Owner]

He (Friedman) adviced a fascist regime; that's enough for me to show he's crazy. Fascists cannot be changed. Friedman's boneheaded ideas led to a 25% unemployment rate, and his policies in Chile have reversed. The austrian school is a dying movement in economics and is completely dead in philosophy and logic.

1) Advising fascists doesn't make you fascist, nor does advising communists make you communist. Friedman tried to promote economic freedom because he thought, with good reason, that it leads to political freedom, and he did so to both fascist and communist regimes. Draw whatever conclusions you will.

2) I'm not going to get into an argument about Chile, but there's a reason it is the richest country in South America.

3) I'm not an Austrian.


Many other Libertarians openly support racial institutions like those founded by Rushton who try and prove that blacks are genetically inferior.


I don't know anything about Rushton, but I'll tell you this: anyone who really is a racist doesn't qualify as a libertarian in my book. Libertarianism is all about respect for the individual, and crudely collectivist thinking like prejudice because of race is entirely incompatible with it.


And when I say "destroyed the credibility" - I mean I caught them in blatant lies - such as one claiming he was a scientist of the highest order.


I doubt anyone claiming he was a 'scientist of the highest order' is a prominent libertarian. I'd like to think we're smarter than that.


I don't care about your opinion of my 'arguments' - my arguments are clearly sound, as evidenced by the fact that no one has refuted them.

And how are they straw man arguments?

If you want to see your arguments refuted, just read the thread. You're using straw man arguments when you attribute ridiculous positions like 'libertarians are in favour of the government enforcing slavery' when no libertarian has ever said such a thing.


The only straw men here are your own. In fact, they're lies. No libertarian-socialist ever aided or adviced Pol Pot.


I never said they did - maybe you should read a little more carefully. I said that if you feel justified concluding that all libertarians support fascists based on the (wrong) belief that a couple did, I don't see how you can object to people concluding that all socialists support tyrants like Stalin or Pol Pot.


And by slavery, I mean the slavery of corporate institutions. The kind of "wage slavery" that the original libertarians talked about.


I'm not sure that 'wage slavery' is even a meaningful term, but it might interest you to know that I - and many other libertarians - think that corporations are an illegitimate concept that could not survive in a real free market.

[IcarusAngel]

So everybody gets to define communism/anarchism?


Yes, everybody gets to run their community how they want it. That is the nature of a true free society. They simply cannot expand out and control everything, that would be a government or a corporation, which is strictly anti-communist.


I see that you have fallen under the illusion that the civil war was about slavery. Poor you.


The Civil War brought an end to the brutal American slavery that existed in the US.

After the Civil War, black colleges, schools, and communities began springing up all over America.


So you are anti-communist?


Quit being an idiot. Communists and libertarian-socialists are two ideologies that are similiar, but distinct. Just as fascism and libertarianism are both right-wing ideologies, but distinct.


you are purposely miss-wording when you say they support slavery. Because they do not support slavery in the way that most people mean it by. You are a deceiver. Do I really need to go into why they believe in private property for you? Also do you support taxes?

Most people do understand it is slavery to allow people to work children 16 hours a day and to allow corporations to own vast amount of land, unregulated. Most people do understand it is slavery to give the corporations all the property and to force people to work for menial wages just to be able to survive, and if they get hurt they are SOL with no health care.

That is why MOST people support workers' rights, workers' compensation, minimum wage, anti-trust laws, and other anti-corporate measures, like regulations.

Libertarians do not, and are openly pro-corporate slavery.

As a true anarchist, I'm one who will call a spade a space. Slavery is slavery, and wage-slavery is a very real concept that is becoming more and more understood.

[freakazoid]

I've read your anti-abortion posts

Oh yeah? Which ones? I haven't seen you prove ANYTHING you are saying, yet I have provided it. You do realize that I was once restricted for supposedly being pro-life, and yet I am now unrestricted. Guess others feel differently than you.


I asked you if you were a libertarian-socialist once, and you declined to answer.

You have/I have? Why don't you ever provide links?


It's nobody's fault but your own if people misconstrue your political beliefs considering the fact that they are muddled and ignorant.

Yeah, it is true that I am not as smart as a lot of the people here, nor am I a great speaker. I have never once said that I was.



By the way, which anarchist authors have you read that are supportive of allowing people to own as much private property as they want?

Where have I said that I believe people should be able to?


Yes, it is.

So if someone was to advice Stalin and be like, "Hey, how you are doing things is not good. You should do them this way." That would be supporting him?


You cannot "make better" a fascist regime, the only way to do that is to dismantle it and bring some democracy in there, at which point it would cease being fascist.

You do realize that I am an insurrectionary anarchist right?


Friedman was trying to show that fascist regimes could be more beneficial than the totalitarian socialist ones.

Yeah, that is why he gave the same speeches to other countries to, :rolleyes: Oh and, both suck.


Zero. There are zero libertarian-socialists here who support Stalin.

I was talking about all leftists here.


And Stalin himself hated anarchists and vice versa. Get your facts straight freakazoid.

Yeah, I know that. He even had a book called something like "Socialism or anarchy". Or something like that. I almost bought it once at a abook store to see what he had to say, I skimmed through some of the pages and was like, what a bunch of BS and didn't buy it. It is you who needs to get his facts straight.


If they weren't sound a libertarian would have spoken up by now.

Oh thats right. I forgot that libertarians are psychic and know when a thread on revleft about libertarians is made and they will all flock to it in defense, :rolleyes:

[IcarusAngel]

1) Advising fascists doesn't make you fascist, nor does advising communists make you communist. Friedman tried to promote economic freedom because he thought, with good reason, that it leads to political freedom, and he did so to both fascist and communist regimes. Draw whatever conclusions you will.


I didn't say it made him a "fascist" - I said it made him crazy. Plus, it probably led to contributing deaths because his policies were failures.


2) I'm not going to get into an argument about Chile, but there's a reason it is the richest country in South America.

Yes, they became a social democracy, who tend to stay powerful. Just as the US became a powerful country through a combination of: wars, protectionism, tariffs, social programs (mainly under FDR), and so on.


I don't know anything about Rushton, but I'll tell you this: anyone who really is a racist doesn't qualify as a libertarian in my book.

Doesn't matter. Many Libertarians try and use race, rather than the problems of capitalism, to explain away economic situations.

That they would go to race is again more evidence of their extreme, right-wing nature.


Libertarianism is all about respect for the individual, and crudely collectivist thinking like prejudice because of race is entirely incompatible with it.


Libertarianism is anti-individual.

First of all, private property is a very collectivist concept. It requires that everybody agree to your definition of private property, which varies from Libertarian to Libertarian.

So, it's very collectivist in its thinking, and there is no room for disagreement.

Libertarians are indoctrinated idiots, as evidence by your inability to do anything.

Second, private property can become easily consolidated. This happens because of the arbitrary forces of the market, which have, historically, been government backed and government funded. Most corporations gained their power before a majority of the people here were even born, and when they have so much control of the money and resources they can shape the economy as much as the economy shapes them.

Just because Ayn Rand and other cult leaders claim to be individuals, doesn't mean everybody agrees with your prejudicial language (i.e. your fallacy).


I doubt anyone claiming he was a 'scientist of the highest order' is a prominent libertarian.

Of course not. Scientists are not libertarians.


I'm not sure that 'wage slavery' is even a meaningful term

It is a meaningful term. Not even most Americans support the corporate fascism libertarians support: removal of workers' rights, and labor unions, no minimum wage laws, no health care, nada, and so on.

Not even most Americans are on board with your crazy ideas and there are more Green Party registered members than there are registered members in the crazy, cuckoo LP.

[Self-Owner]

it's 2 am, I'm going to bed. I might reply tomorrow

[IcarusAngel]

think that corporations are an illegitimate concept that could not survive in a real free market.

Care to show me where in the Libertarian Party's platform this is made clear, Self-Indoctrinated?

And go up to 10 Americans, in NY or in Oregon, and ask them if one corporation, or two corporations, controlling all the resources would be slavery.

See what answer you get.

Most Democrats I think understand what wage slavery is, too. Libertarians are further to the right than even Democrats, then.

And 70% of Americans think corporations have TOO MUCH power as it is - a poll by businessweek (google it, it actually was higher than 70%).

Most Libertarians are in the LP, and the LP is pro-corporation.

If Americans don't understand how corporatism run amok is bad, what libertarians support, how come Libertarians rank behind Greens in party membership?

[freakazoid]

Yes, everybody gets to run their community how they want it.

I see that I had misunderstood you. I was thinking that you meant to define it as in picking out what the definition was. That definition would also pretty much apply to a libertarian society.


The Civil War brought an end to the brutal American slavery that existed in the US.

No it didn't. Slavery and inequality still existed after that. The south had every right to secede from the Union. Lincoln deserved that bullet to the head. Sic semper tyrannis!


Quit being an idiot. Communists and libertarian-socialists are two ideologies that are similiar, but distinct.

So is it ok for communists/socialists to be racist?


Just as fascism and libertarianism are both right-wing ideologies, but distinct.

This whole right/left wing thing doesn't really give a really good idea on how things are.


Most people do understand it is slavery...

Most people don't use slavery that way. And I ask again. Do you think taxes are slavery?


Libertarians do not, and are openly pro-corporate slavery.

That is because of why they believe what they believe.


As a true anarchist, I'm one who will call a spade a space.

Really? I prefer to call a spade a spade. But you can call it whatever you like, :p

[Red Anarchist of Love]

can you two give it a rest. you guys have been a each other troughts for more that 40 minutes. :)

[freakazoid]

First of all, private property is a very collectivist concept. It requires that everybody agree to your definition of private property, which varies from Libertarian to Libertarian.It also varies from communist to communist. Shoot, libertarians are more unified, as in there really aren't any disagreements at all, then us leftists, where most of us can't seem to really agree on much of anything besides a few basic things.

[freakazoid]

can you two give it a rest. you guys have been a each other troughts for more that 40 minutes. http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

I've got nothing else better to due, :p... :(

[IcarusAngel]

I asked you if you were a libertarian-socialist once, and you declined to answer.


You have/I have? Why don't you ever provide links?

Because you'd just start coming up with new lies. But here you go:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/america-going-socialist-t84952/index.html?p=1202025

I asked you, since you're claiming to be an "anarchist," if you were a socialist, meaning, are you a socialist anarchist or are you a capitalist-"anarchist". I received no answer, even though you clearly saw my post as you replied to the thread later.

There are really two kinds of generalized, anarchist thought: those of the socialists (who are diverse), and those of the capitalists. Who are not really anarchists in the first place, as Adolf Fischer said, "every anarchist is a socialist, but every socialist is not necessarily an anarchist."

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Anarchist_FAQ/What_is_Anarchism%3F/1.4

Of course, you could be an anarcho-communist, but surely the anarcho-communists wouldn't put up with such nonsense. (Plus, anarcho-communists are really socialists too.)


So if someone was to advice Stalin and be like, "Hey, how you are doing things is not good. You should do them this way." That would be supporting him?

That isn't what Friedman told him.

Friedman was telling Pinochet how to be more efficient.


No it didn't. Slavery and inequality still existed after that. The south had every right to secede from the Union. Lincoln deserved that bullet to the head. Sic semper tyrannis!

Clearly, you once again show your ludicrous, right-wing beliefs.

Slavery declined after the Civil War and more slaves were set free.

The South did not have a right to break away from the Union so they could create a slave society.

If anything, US history shows states' rights to be more tyrannical, more anti-socialist than the federal government.


So is it ok for communists/socialists to be racist?


Of course not. But those who are racial communists, if they existed, are not communist because communism is about equality.

You can't have equality and be racist at the same time.


Most people don't use slavery that way.

But most anarchists do.


And I ask again. Do you think taxes are slavery?

No, I don't think taxes are slavery. In capitalism, I think taxes are even needed, because they pay for things that workers and people benefit from.

In fact, I could see taxing people in an anarchal community in order to make the community function better.

The point of a community is to be non-hierarchical, and about equality, and not based on the arbitrary, corporatist market that capitalist support.

As Spooner said:

"wheel of fortune [I.e., capitalist chance], in the present state of things, is of such enormous diameter" and "those on its top are on so showy a height" while "those underneath it are in such a pit of debt, oppression, and despair." He argued that under his system "fortunes could hardly be represented by a wheel; for it would present no such height, no such depth, no such irregularity of motion as now. It should rather be represented by an extended surface, varied somewhat by inequalities, but still exhibiting a general level, affording a safe position for all, and creating no necessity, for either force or fraud, on the part of anyone to secure his standing." Thus Individualist anarchism would create a condition "neither of poverty, nor riches; but of moderate competency -- such as will neither enervate him by luxuury, nor disable him by destitution; but which will at once give him and opportunity to labour, (both mentally and physically) and stimulate him by offering him all the fruits of his labours."

And that land-owners were tyrants:

"These tyrants, living solely on plunder, and on the labour of their slaves, and applying all their energies to the seizure of still more plunder, and the enslavement of still other defenceless persons; increasing, too, their numbers, perfecting their organisations, and multiplying their weapons of war, they extend their conquests until, in order to hold what they have already got, it becomes necessary for them to act systematically, and co-operate with each other in holding their slaves in subjection.
"But all this they can do only by establishing what they call a government, and making what they call laws . . . Thus substantially all the legislation of the world has had its origin in the desires of one class of persons to plunder and enslave others, and hold them as property."


He even said that colonial slavery was more beneficent than wage-slavery:


"These liberated slaves, as they were called, were now scarcely less slaves than they were before. Their means of subsistence were perhaps even more precarious than when each had his own owner, who had an interest to preserve his life."
You're clearly out of touch with anarchist-theory and reality.

[IcarusAngel]

It also varies from communist to communist. Shoot, libertarians are more unified, as in there really aren't any disagreements at all, then us leftists, where most of us can't seem to really agree on much of anything besides a few basic things.

Irrelevant. Your definition of property has little to do with whether you are a communist or not because communists want to ABOLISH all private property.

[freakazoid]

But here you go:

I'm sorry I didn't respond. I didn't see that tiny post snuggled in between the two large posts, on of them yours. It took me a while to even find it just now. Actually I just re-read, as in I typed the words before this sentence and then went back to the thread and read it and am now typing this sentence out, and I had responded to something you had said in that very post. I have no idea how I missed that question and I can see how you would think I was ignoring it. But I can assure you that I wasn't. Although you should of known the answer already by looking at my past posts. To give you a belated reply. I am most certainly not an an-cap. Would the proper term for me then be a libertarian-socialist? I don't really know the difference between most different leftist ideologies out there.


even though you clearly saw my post as you replied to the thread later.

Replying to the thread later =/= clearly seeing your post.


Of course, you could be an anarcho-communist, but surely the anarcho-communists wouldn't put up with such nonsense. (Plus, anarcho-communists are really socialists too.)

For a while I thought that anarcho-communist would of properly defined my beliefs, because at the time I thought it merely meant a leftist anarchist and not an an-cap.


Friedman was telling Pinochet how to be more efficient.

How to be more efficient economically, which he believed would make the country more free. You are trying to make it sound like he tried to make it more efficient into a dictatorship, which isn't true.


Clearly, you once again show your ludicrous, right-wing beliefs.

Which are...?


The South did not have a right to break away from the Union so they could create a slave society.

It wasn't about creating a slave society.


If anything, US history shows states' rights to be more tyrannical, more anti-socialist than the federal government.

lol. Who do you think has a better understanding of what is going on at the local level, the Feds or the state? Was it the fucking Feds or the state which burned down the Branch Davidians, responsible for the massacre at Ruby Ridge, etc. The states have more rights than the Fed, of course I believe that both should be abolished but if they are to exist the state has more rights. Fuck the Fed!


Of course not. But those who are racial communists, if they existed, are not communist because communism is about equality.

There have been and there are.

You can't have equality and be racist at the same time.

Exactly! Now tell me exactly how does this "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." allow racism?


But most anarchists do.

I'm not talking about anarchists. I'm talking about how most people do.


No, I don't think taxes are slavery.

"Private property is theft, and thus, slavery.

Power over a man's subsistence, what occurs when you have a lot of property, is power over his will. Libertarians allow this by rejecting equality, thus they support the "right" of the rich to enslave the poor."

So you don't think that taxes are slavery, yet private property and wage-slavery is slavery? Say you make $10 an hour, taxes are 10%, and have worked for 10 hours. That means that before taxes you would of made $100. But taxes take out $10, which means that you actually only receive $90. Which means that you basically worked one whole hour without compensation for your labor, THAT is slavery!


Irrelevant. Your definition of property has little to do with whether you are a communist or not because communists want to ABOLISH all private property.

Which makes knowing what is considered private property and what is personal property even more important. Because if there isn't an agreed upon definition then things will be taken away.

[IcarusAngel]

I have no concern for the "branch davidsons" although I'm sure not glad it happened, they were a fundamentalist religious cult abusing children. I believe the official story is that he shot the women and children and then burned them.

And no, taxes are not stealing. I agree with the anarchists who say that renting people out is slavery, especially when you have to rent yourself out to an unjust capitalistic market.

Taxes are one way - a small, minor way - to address the inequities of capitalism. One of the goals of a democracy is to solve the inequity in the market place, and taxes do that. The poor person benefits far more from taxes than the rich person.

Taxes on the poor should be about 1%, and when you get to over 1.2 million, about 60% - 80%. I would call for a maximum wage as well, but these are "reformist" positions.

I believe the government is often less oppressive than the corporations (who are backed by the government, though).

Most slavery comes from cororations, but at least in government you can vote, have referrendums and recalls, trial by jury, and so on. No such thing in "right-to-work" (right-to-enslave) states.

[IcarusAngel]

"The poor person benefits far more from taxes than the rich person."

I should correct myself here. The rich obviously benefit more from the current tax system - corporate welfare is triple the amount of social.

But it should be reversed, as it is in many European countries.

Like Spooner, I call for a system of minor inequality, the kind that would naturally rise up in any natural system, not the enormous, and unnatural, inequality that exists in the US under capitalist/(right-wing-)libertarian tyranny.

[freakazoid]

No such thing in "right-to-work" (right-to-enslave) states.

Doesn't "right-to-work" mean that the job can't just fire you for no reason? I wouldn't see that as a bad thing?


they were a fundamentalist religious cult abusing children

That's a government lie.


Taxes are one way - a small, minor way - to address the inequities of capitalism.

I don't care much for reformism.


The poor person benefits far more from taxes than the rich person.

The welfare state is self perpetuating.


And no, taxes are not stealing. I agree with the anarchists who say that renting people out is slavery, especially when you have to rent yourself out to an unjust capitalistic market.

With taxes you are renting yourself out to the government.


I would call for a maximum wage as well, but these are "reformist" positions.

And taxes aren't?

[freakazoid]

Slavery declined after the Civil War and more slaves were set free.

Saddam was killed because we invaded, so that makes it a good thing.
:confused:

[theraven]

So because there aren't many libertain intellecuals, they are unproductive?

a few points

1) Generally if you're a capitilist you gravitate towards real jobs where you makea lot of money, rather then an intellectual job.

2) While Socialists see the need for the need of an intellectual argument to convince people how awesoem their idea is, Capisltis already have their system in place and it's effectivness is seen by most people, hence they don'tfeel the need.

3) The dissaffected with society/failure types (who make up the majority of the intellectuals you mention) generally blame the current system for their failures/dissaffection.

If anything this list proves that intelligenet libertarains find real jobs and ARE productive.

[freakazoid]

Ron Paul is a Dr.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Care to show me where in the Libertarian Party's platform this is made clear, Self-Indoctrinated?

And go up to 10 Americans, in NY or in Oregon, and ask them if one corporation, or two corporations, controlling all the resources would be slavery.

See what answer you get.

Most Democrats I think understand what wage slavery is, too. Libertarians are further to the right than even Democrats, then.

And 70% of Americans think corporations have TOO MUCH power as it is - a poll by businessweek (google it, it actually was higher than 70%).

Most Libertarians are in the LP, and the LP is pro-corporation.

If Americans don't understand how corporatism run amok is bad, what libertarians support, how come Libertarians rank behind Greens in party membership?

Sounds like Self-Owner is suddenly adopting left-libertarian tenants to argue against - left-libertarians? I don't know of any right-libertarian that advocates for the end of corporations, but anyone is allowed to bring a well-known example to this thread; from all the studying I've done (which may rightly pale in comparison to Self-Owner), they believe only that companies shouldn't be directly subsidized by the state. Friedman, Rothbard, Rand, Rockwell, and Von Mises all defended incorporation benefits, even if they occur in an "anarchist" society.

After all right-libertarians do uphold the idea that almost any "contract" agreed upon by two or more people should be made legitimate with some force behind it.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't care much for reformism.

Taxes aren't about "reformism." Reformism is when you believe capitalism can be reformed out of existence - I believe capitalism must be overthrown.

However, taxes generally make capitalist society more tolerable, by providing social services that are essential in the poor.

These could even exist in an anarchist society. It's not impossible for an anarchist commune to request people to pay some kind of a ground rent, or some other kind of tax, to keep the social order fuctioning.

Furthermore, in anarchism, the only way you can find work might be to find work that is needed to the community.

This is similar to the situation where in capitalism, you're forced to work to whatever is currently marketable. For example, I have to get a job that will give a profit incentive to my boss.

The difference between capitalism and anarchism is that anarchism is geared toward democratically determining people's needs.

So, taxes are needed, and they should be in the range of 60% on millionaires.

If anything, the US is undertaxed.

Communists as well call for taxation, i.e. Marx. However, when the revolution is achieved, or you make the "transistion to socialism," taxes would be eliminated, because they are not needed.


The welfare state is self perpetuating.


Capitalism as well is self-perpetuating because your needs, basic needs, inevitably increase your servitude. By fulfilling your wants as well, you increase your servitude, thus you have a vested interest in the system.


And taxes aren't?

Not really.

I advocate a world government, and high taxes, over capitalist "nation-states."

The problem with "states' rights" is that corporations can more easily bully the states.

[IcarusAngel]

Saddam was killed because we invaded, so that makes it a good thing.
:confused:

This is ludicrous and a false comparison. Things did NOT get better in Iraq after the US overthrew Saddam. Millions of citizens have had to die in Iraq, as well.

The US crack downs on Basra, Sadr City, Bagdhad, and Fallujah as well have kept the country in poverty and destroyed massive infastructure. People are not free to run their lives anymore, and religious oppression in some cities is at an all time high.

If, however, they became communist or advanced their society, then removing Saddam would have been worth it.

[IcarusAngel]

Ron Paul is not even a real libertarian and disagrees with the LP platform on key issues, like immigration.


So because there aren't many libertain intellecuals, they are unproductive?

a few points

1) Generally if you're a capitilist you gravitate towards real jobs where you makea lot of money, rather then an intellectual job.

Most extreme libertarians are in the field of "economics" which is an "intellectual job" that contributes little of value.

Capitalists are also not "capitalist" in the Libertarian sense, in that they take from big government all the time, much more than workers.


2) While Socialists see the need for the need of an intellectual argument to convince people how awesoem their idea is, Capisltis already have their system in place and it's effectivness is seen by most people, hence they don'tfeel the need.

The only time we've had Libertarian economics was during the Gilded Age, and it was a failure.

Laissez-faire capitalism has failed all over the third world as well.

Now we have a "mixed economy" running under social democracy.


3) The dissaffected with society/failure types (who make up the majority of the intellectuals you mention) generally blame the current system for their failures/dissaffection.

If anything this list proves that intelligenet libertarains find real jobs and ARE productive.


Name these Libertarians who've made contributions to humanity.

I don't care about what you think is "real work."

[IcarusAngel]

Sounds like Self-Owner is suddenly adopting left-libertarian tenants to argue against - left-libertarians? I don't know of any right-libertarian that advocates for the end of corporations, but anyone is allowed to bring a well-known example to this thread; from all the studying I've done (which may rightly pale in comparison to Self-Owner), they believe only that companies shouldn't be directly subsidized by the state. Friedman, Rothbard, Rand, Rockwell, and Von Mises all defended incorporation benefits, even if they occur in an "anarchist" society.

After all right-libertarians do uphold the idea that almost any "contract" agreed upon by two or more people should be made legitimate with some force behind it.

Self-Indoctrinated is simply BSing, there is no question about it. That is why he fled the thread.

Most Libertarians are openly pro-corporation. However, a few LP candidates have called for the abolition of corporations, in the sense that state charters be removed.

But as you say, they don't generally believe that companies can't exist. They don't talk about interest, the attempt of capitalist to usurp power by owning massive amounts of land, essentially becoming a government in and of themselves.

That's another thing to remember. Libertarians are not "minimalist government" advocates - they are advocates of just another form of tyranny.

This is because landlords are governments (http://www.tpaine.org/mikeland.htm), in much the same way slave owners were governments.

This is why socialists and leftists, and anarchists, fought for better conditions, like minimum wage, 8 hour work day, and so on, and would have fought against the slavery that existed during their time as well.

Any unjust government should be overthrown, landlord or slave owner. Surprisingly, this is the very concept of Jeffersonian democracy, although libertarians twist his words to their favor. He would have despised the massive inequality in capitalism, though.

The type of society libertarians advocate would theoretically justify tyranny, even monarchism (one person rule) or Fascism (when the state protects corporations would be allowed in their system. ANY system that would allow tyranny, is a flawed system.

[IcarusAngel]

I agree with you. Far right wing cappies have small brains.

They have a preference for tyranny.

Just look at this analysis, from our very own forum:

"But now that we can map the brains, genes, and unconscious attitudes of conservatives, we have refined our diagnosis: conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death"

"Cognitively inflexible" and "fond of hierarchy" sounds just like libertarian-fascists.

Funny, we STILL haven't named a libertarian who has made scientific contributions to humanity (or mathematical, or whatever), after four pages. :laugh:


Get to work you lazy bums.

[Self-Owner]

Sounds like Self-Owner is suddenly adopting left-libertarian tenants to argue against - left-libertarians? I don't know of any right-libertarian that advocates for the end of corporations, but anyone is allowed to bring a well-known example to this thread; from all the studying I've done (which may rightly pale in comparison to Self-Owner), they believe only that companies shouldn't be directly subsidized by the state. Friedman, Rothbard, Rand, Rockwell, and Von Mises all defended incorporation benefits, even if they occur in an "anarchist" society.

Depends what you mean by incorporation benefits. If you mean allowing people to pool their money and resources into a joint entity (even if they issued stock and bonds), then yeah, I don't see a problem with this. But limited liability corporations, in particular, situations where the owners of a corporation don't maintain full liability for its harmful actions, could not exist. I think Rothbard holds something like this view, but if not he's basically wrong.

[Self-Owner]

Self-Indoctrinated is simply BSing, there is no question about it. That is why he fled the thread.

Sigh. I haven't fled anywhere, it's just that productive people like me can't spend all day and all night online :rolleyes:


Most Libertarians are openly pro-corporation. However, a few LP candidates have called for the abolition of corporations, in the sense that state charters be removed.

I don't think you can equate libertarians with the LP. They aren't the same thing.



But as you say, they don't generally believe that companies can't exist. They don't talk about interest, the attempt of capitalist to usurp power by owning massive amounts of land, essentially becoming a government in and of themselves.

There's nothing wrong with interest, you seem to be stuck with 15th century notions of usury. Interest rates exist simply because of time preference, i.e. the fact that people prefer current consumption over future consumption.



This is because landlords are governments (http://www.tpaine.org/mikeland.htm), in much the same way slave owners were governments.

There's no parallel between someone who legitimately acquires land by working on it (or trading it with someone who has), and a coercively imposed government.

[IcarusAngel]

Landlords are government because no one ever "legitimately acquires land" and any attempt at allowing 100 individuals over in sector A of a state, or wherever, to control land because he "mixed it with his labor" and then forcing everybody else in the country to agree to it, is fascism.

Just because 100 people agree that some idiot should own land, doesn't mean everybody should.

It's actually much worse than this because all land ownership can be shown to have started off with corporate charters, grants by the government, land development, and so on. And going further back, it was a theft from the Indians and so on.

Land ownership is tyranny, and has been the basis of tyranny for centuries.

Interest, and debt slavery are also bad things according to real libertarians, not the fascist sympathizers you support.

Obviously you have no argument and no examples of these "productive" (contributions to humanity) libertarians.

The only way to determine ownership is democratically, with a certain, small amount of land being guaranteed.

[Jazzratt]

Ron Paul is a Dr.

and an imbecile.

[Self-Owner]

I didn't say it made him a "fascist" - I said it made him crazy. Plus, it probably led to contributing deaths because his policies were failures.

Yes, they became a social democracy, who tend to stay powerful. Just as the US became a powerful country through a combination of: wars, protectionism, tariffs, social programs (mainly under FDR), and so on.

Like I said, if his policies were failures it wouldn't explain why Chile is the richest country on its continent. And the idea that wars, protectionism, tariffs and government spending is the way to prosperity is ridiculous: if you want to really test it, compare the countries which have always practiced them with the capitalist ones.



Doesn't matter. Many Libertarians try and use race, rather than the problems of capitalism, to explain away economic situations.

Then they're idiots.



That they would go to race is again more evidence of their extreme, right-wing nature.

Maybe some libertarians are extreme; maybe some socialists are extreme too. I don't see how you can generalize so easily though.


Libertarianism is anti-individual.

First of all, private property is a very collectivist concept. It requires that everybody agree to your definition of private property, which varies from Libertarian to Libertarian.

So, it's very collectivist in its thinking, and there is no room for disagreement.

This is just silly - the idea that individuals are entitled to private property is collectivist? I don't think we're even speaking the same language.


Libertarians are indoctrinated idiots, as evidence by your inability to do anything.

How do you know what I can and can't do?


Second, private property can become easily consolidated. This happens because of the arbitrary forces of the market, which have, historically, been government backed and government funded. Most corporations gained their power before a majority of the people here were even born, and when they have so much control of the money and resources they can shape the economy as much as the economy shapes them.

Actually I agree with all this :blushing:

Without the government backing and funding, corporations would have a lot less power and control of the economy would be in the hands of far more people. But this is why I'm a libertarian :lol:



Of course not. Scientists are not libertarians.

Quite a few are, actually...

[IcarusAngel]

Like I said, if his policies were failures it wouldn't explain why Chile is the richest country on its continent. And the idea that wars, protectionism, tariffs and government spending is the way to prosperity is ridiculous: if you want to really test it, compare the countries which have always practiced them with the capitalist ones.

The empirical evidence of history does support it. America's fastest period of economic growth happened when it was protectionist. America's fastest turn around happened during FDR, because of his New Deal. His New Deal growth rate averaged even higher than Reagan's "seven fiat years."

All othe countries who are "capitalist" built themselves up through fascism, like in Chile, or through left over British oligarchs and cartels, like in Hong Kong, or through nationalism and investment from foreign millionaires.

The US, the "capitalist country," has, and always will, spend billions of dollars to generate the economy.

You're clearly ignorant of history, and, of politics.


This is just silly - the idea that individuals are entitled to private property is collectivist? I don't think we're even speaking the same language.

Yes, because you force everybody to accept your definitions of property, and libertarians force everybody to accept their definition of coercion, but I would put the involuntary servitude that exists under capitalism in with slavery.

Plus, under capitalism your life depends on what is marketable, and what is marketable depends on how corporations came to be constructed and manipulated in the market.

This is the way the mob works: by appealing to certain people in certain sectors of an economy, and then forcing everybody else to agree with them.

So, capitalism is anti-individualist, anti-freedom, in addition to its numerous other problems.


Actually I agree with all this :blushing:

Interesting. Too bad your own ideology increases the occurences of consolidation of resources.


Without the government backing and funding, corporations would have a lot less power and control of the economy would be in the hands of far more people. But this is why I'm a libertarian :lol:

When we had freer markets in the US, there was even MORE consolidation of resources, more inequality, and more corporatism.

Same with England.


Quite a few are, actually...

Such as?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Depends what you mean by incorporation benefits. If you mean allowing people to pool their money and resources into a joint entity (even if they issued stock and bonds), then yeah, I don't see a problem with this. But limited liability corporations, in particular, situations where the owners of a corporation don't maintain full liability for its harmful actions, could not exist. I think Rothbard holds something like this view, but if not he's basically wrong.

Rothbard was originally very vocal against corporations when he identified as a "leftist," but he came to the right in full swing and said corporations could be established with limited liability under anarchism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north408.html) - so long as there's not a higher "appeal."

There's really no way you can stop people from pooling their personal items in the form of stock handouts without breaking into statism, but the success of corporations partially relies on contracts being enforceable - which "anarcho-"capitalists believe is instrumental. Real anarchists believe all private contracts are illegitimate.


Like I said, if his policies were failures it wouldn't explain why Chile is the richest country on its continent. This is technically incorrect on two accounts. One: Argentina is the richest Latin American country (http://gross-national-product.suite101.com/article.cfm/richest_south_american_countries), and the difference between Chile and Uruguay is negligible. Two: the Chilean Miracle occurred during the last throes of Pinochet and the restoration of democracy and welfarism in the 90s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chile_GDP.jpg).

From the beginning of the reforms of the Chicago Boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys) in 1975 through 1986, there was almost no growth in per-capita GDP, a decline in per capita consumption (unclear, but around 15%) and an (overall) increase in unemployment from 4.8% to 14%. Chile's annual growth in per capita real income from 1985 to 1996 averaged 7%, far above the rest of Latin America. [1] (http://www-hoover.stanford.edu/publications/digest/974/bckr3.html) Since then the economy has averaged 7-percent annual growth, raising per capita (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Per_capita) income for Chile's 16-million citizens to more than $10,000 and creating a thriving middle class[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. This growth stagnated in 1997, with GDP rising by only a small margin between 1997 and 2002

By 1983, real salaries dropped 14% what they had been in 1970.

Your defense of Chile is typical of vulgar libertarians. When the government privatizes its infrastructure, it gives resources to the highest bidder. But what right did the state possess these resources in the first place? And more frighteningly, what right do corporations have when they didn't contribute any labor of improvement until after the deal was secured?

On a similar note, Venezuela's growth under Chavez's administration has consistently been above 6% (for 2007 it was over 8%). According to national guidelines, poverty went down from 45% in 1999 to 12% (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30059.html) in 2007.

[Self-Owner]

Rothbard was originally very vocal against corporations when he identified as a "leftist," but he came to the right in full swing and said corporations could be established with limited liability under anarchism (http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north408.html) - so long as there's not a higher "appeal."

I'm no expert on the twists and turns of Rothbard's thought (God knows he twisted and turned enough in his lifetime). I know he says


On the purely free market, such men would simply announce to their creditors that their liability is limited to the capital specifically invested in the corporation, and that beyond this their personal funds are not liable for debts, as they would be under a partnership arrangement. It then rests with the sellers and lenders to this corporation to decide whether or not they will transact business with it. If they do, then they proceed at their own risk. Thus, the government does not grant corporations a privilege of limited liability; anything announced and freely contracted for in advance is a right of a free individual, not a special privilege. It is not necessary that governments grant charters to corporations.But in the footnote, he says:


It is true that limited liability for torts is the illegitimate conferring of a special privilege, but this does not loom large among the total liabilities of any corporation.So I certainly take issue with the order of presentation here - limited liability from torts is about as clear a case of state privilege there is, and there's no way corporations can be excused. But despite the difference in emphasis, I think he basically says what I originally said.



There's really no way you can stop people from pooling their personal items in the form of stock handouts without breaking into statism, but the success of corporations partially relies on contracts being enforceable - which "anarcho-"capitalists believe is instrumental. Real anarchists believe all private contracts are illegitimate.Really? Can you elaborate why you think all voluntary private contracts are illegitimate, cos it seems ridiculous to me.


This is technically incorrect on two accounts. One: Argentina is the richest Latin American country (http://gross-national-product.suite101.com/article.cfm/richest_south_american_countries),

Really? That's not what wikipedia says, either nominally or by PPP. In both of these categories, Chile comes out ahead of both of these other countries.


Two: the Chilean Miracle occurred during the last throes of Pinochet and the restoration of democracy and welfarism in the 90s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Chile_GDP.jpg).
Again, from wikipedia: "The "Miracle of Chile" is a term coined by Milton Friedman (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milton_Friedman) to describe the Augusto Pinochet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto_Pinochet)'s support for liberal economic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_liberalism) reforms in Chile (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile) carried out by the "Chicago Boys (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Boys)." Implemented economic model had three main objectives: economic liberalization, privatization of state owned companies, and stabilization of inflation. These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down."


Your defense of Chile is typical of vulgar libertarians. When the government privatizes its infrastructure, it gives resources to the highest bidder. But what right did the state possess these resources in the first place? And more frighteningly, what right do corporations have when they didn't contribute any labor of improvement until after the deal was secured?

[quote] On a similar note, Venezuela's growth under Chavez's administration has consistently been above 6% (for 2007 it was over 8%). According to national guidelines, poverty went down from 45% in 1999 to 12% (http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg30059.html) in 2007.
I'm no expert on Venezuela either, but it wouldn't surprise me if rising oil prices worldwide has a significant impact on that.

Don't get me wrong, I am no apologist for Chile. Pinochet was a scumbag, and I agree with you about the complete illegitimacy of his actions. The only point I was making is that Friedman's policies worked, as free market policies do.

[IcarusAngel]

Good post GeneCosta. The fact is, libertarians refuse to use mainstream sources here and can't be taken seriously, as usual.

But didn't Argentina go through its own fascist period, i.e., Videla. :laugh:

As for property, another anarchist (or maybe political science student, I don't know, it was on an ancap forum) wrote this:

"If we assume that everyone's title (at least for private property) is legitimate then we are also assuming they got it from people who didn't steal it who also got it from people who didn't steal it and so on and so forth. So how can you be sure property rights are legitimate at least as they are now? In fact there are some cases where we can know for sure they are not. Think of the Native Americans. All that was stolen.

In fact how was property established in the first place? "

I agree. Not even the property that is currently held is legitimate, EVEN by capitalists own standards.

How could we ever force everybody to agree with one definition of property, theoretically allowing tyranny along the way? It's crazy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Really? Can you elaborate why you think all voluntary private contracts are illegitimate, cos it seems ridiculous to me.Because while people may "voluntarily" agree to contracts, one party may have a gun to their head, or be very desperate for food. They could be ignorant, young, old, or sick. The second party could blackmail them into consent. Only agreements that extend to the present allow one complete control over their lives.


These market-oriented economic policies were continued and strengthened after Pinochet stepped down."I'm not disputing that Chile took a free market approach. I'm merely stating that the government also broadened welfare, courts, and public education (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/aninat.htm). The government almost took a left-libertarian approach by opposing bidding programs and looking past corporations. Pinochet made the mistake of believing you could just privatize everything and the proverbial invisible hand would take over and roll.

This is all largely irrelevent since there does exist "free market socialism" as articulated by Benjamin Tucker. Unlike right-libertarianism it doesn't turn everything into commodities.

[Self-Owner]

Good post GeneCosta. The fact is, libertarians refuse to use mainstream sources here and can't be taken seriously, as usual.

But didn't Argentina go through its own fascist period, i.e., Videla. :laugh:

As for property, another anarchist (or maybe political science student, I don't know, it was on an ancap forum) wrote this:

"If we assume that everyone's title (at least for private property) is legitimate then we are also assuming they got it from people who didn't steal it who also got it from people who didn't steal it and so on and so forth. So how can you be sure property rights are legitimate at least as they are now? In fact there are some cases where we can know for sure they are not. Think of the Native Americans. All that was stolen.

In fact how was property established in the first place? "

I agree. Not even the property that is currently held is legitimate, EVEN by capitalists own standards.

I agree, not even the property that is currently held is legitimate. The problem is, how do we resolve the issue? It makes no sense to say that we should have socialism, as a penance for our sins in the past. If you can think of a way to fairly sort it out, do let me know.


How could we ever force everybody to agree with one definition of property, theoretically allowing tyranny along the way? It's crazy.

Bear in mind that what you're doing is precisely what you criticize: trying to force everyone to agree with your definition of property, one which has certainly led to tyranny in the past.

[Self-Owner]

Because while people may "voluntarily" agree to contracts, one party may have a gun to their head, or be very desperate for food. They could be ignorant, young, old, or sick. The second party could blackmail them into consent. Only agreements that extend to the present allow one complete control over their lives.

Sure some contracts are coerced, but you'd just be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you concluded that all contracts are illegitimate for this reason. I'm also convinced that if contracts were not enforceable many, many, potential cooperative efforts would not take place - and cooperative efforts are, in a nutshell, why anarchism could work.


I'm not disputing that Chile took a free market approach. I'm merely stating that the government also broadened welfare, courts, and public education (http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2000/03/aninat.htm). The government almost took a left-libertarian approach by opposing bidding programs and looking past corporations. Pinochet made the mistake of believing you could just privatize everything and the proverbial invisible hand would take over and roll.

This is all largely irrelevent since there does exist "free market socialism" as articulated by Benjamin Tucker. Unlike right-libertarianism it doesn't turn everything into commodities.


I actually agree with Tucker on virtually everything except for land. He was right on the money on money (regarding government involvement, at any rate), tariffs and patents. I mean, the man was in favour of private defense companies for God's sake! How can ancaps not love him?

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Because he was vehemently anti-capitalist?

To say he was wrong on land illustrates one glaring problem with ancaps. Henry George and Benjamin Tucker were some of the best American theorists for illustrating how land commodities create forceful hierarchies. Land, or more precisely - space and natural resources - cannot be made. It is a natural monopoly that can only be used. Like Thoreau, he found the idea of land ownership ludicrous. "Anarcho-"capitalists have a bad habit of adopting left-libertarian theorists as their own.

Tucker envisioned a system radically different than what you would see Lew Rockwell championing. He wanted private defense agencies that created agreements - not contracts that would get me thrown into jail if I break some company policy. He saw individual entrepreneurs, cooperatives, small businesses, and even collective non-market associations as being the model for success. And while he personally objected to social democracy, he saw that people could organize themselves outside of business protection. The right to private property versus the right to use property is based on the ability to dominate with acquisition. With private property a rich person could gather an army of wage workers and turn a forest into his domain, causing ripple affects across the region and demanding social hierarchy. This is a plutarchy, and thus not anarchy or anarchist. Marxists see this point as true, as evident by personal possessions and property - the latter of which is a relationship. Hell, even Locke's proviso discredits the capitalist maxim.

And of course he would spit on any anarcho-capitalist for their support of corporate privileges.


Sure some contracts are coerced, but you'd just be throwing the baby out with the bathwater if you concluded that all contracts are illegitimate for this reason. I'm also convinced that if contracts were not enforceable many, many, potential cooperative efforts would not take place - and cooperative efforts are, in a nutshell, why anarchism could work.
No. Anarchism relies on agreements, not contracts. We can agree to do something together, but I'm not bound to this decision just because there's some explicit statement underwritten with my signature. Contracts legitimize states, which is why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. The system envisioned by Rothbard and David Friedman is still minarchist, assuming it doesn't break into authoritarianism when these groups compete for all the resources they can get.

[the questionist]

This thread has been abstracted to the point of no return.

[the questionist]

No. Anarchism relies on agreements, not contracts. We can agree to do something together, but I'm not bound to this decision just because there's some explicit statement underwritten with my signature. Contracts legitimize states, which is why anarcho-capitalism is an oxymoron. The system envisioned by Rothbard and David Friedman is still minarchist, assuming it doesn't break into authoritarianism when these groups compete for all the resources they can get.Ok, I'm not necessarily an ancap or a libertarian socialist. I see value in both arguments. Ok Mr.Costa. I find your separation of agreement and contract a bit vague. Lets define terms. Contract is a piece of paper underwritten with a signature?
In the sort of general sense I don't see how an agreement isn't an implicit contract. Even in today's United States , we are bound implicitly to the U.S. laws even though we technically haven't signed anything. Is is valid that we are then bound to these laws and do we have the right to detract from these laws at anytime?



I see contractual agreement legitimizing states as non sequitur. Sorry. Maybe you can explain that to me a little bit more.

Do you see a difference between unilateral forced association and voluntary contracts?

[Bud Struggle]

This thread has been abstracted to the point of no return.

That's how all the threads around here end up.:lol:

Welcome to OI!

[the questionist]

The first thing to understand about contracts is that they are a form of insurance, insofar as they attempt to minimize the risks of noncompliance. If I enter into a five-year mortgage agreement with a bank, I will attempt to minimize my risks by requiring that the bank give me a fixed interest rate for the time period of the contract. My bank, on the other hand, will minimize its risk by retaining ownership of my house as collateral, in case I do not pay the mortgage. In a world without risk, contracts would be unnecessary, and everyone would do business on a handshake. However, there are people who are dishonest, scatterbrained, manipulative and false, and so we need contracts which basically spell out the penalties for noncompliance to particular requirements.

[Bud Struggle]

I disagree.

There is only the handshake. Everything else is superfluous. Business is based on volition. Some things mean more to some people than to other people--that slight inequality of need is how business is done. Nothing else matters.

The contract is only the corpse of the acual agreement.

[the questionist]

I disagree.

There is only the handshake. Everything else is superfluous. Business is based on volition. Some things mean more to some people than to other people--that slight inequality of need is how business is done. Nothing else matters.

The contract is only the corpse of the acual agreement.

Ok TomK. Business to business, yours and mine, if we made a fairly large and valuable agreement of exchange, would you not already perceive risks in that?

I think its reasonable for an agreement to be solidified for risk coverage if one or both of the parties in the agreement place high value on whatever is to be exchanged.

Handshakes do work, this I know from sort of personal experience. In low-risk exchange handshakes or non contractual agreement is actually preferable I think. Say if I went on a vacation and I said I'd pay you some $100 bucks to check on my plants at my house, I think this could be done efficiently with a handshake. The costs of noncompliance is low for both of us and its a good way to build trust between us for future exchanges of possibly more value. The more trust that is established the less of a need for a contract I think.

Now, if you wanted to rent me your garage or sell me your $30,000 car and I agree to pay monthly for it, then I think the risk premium is much higher and I think its rather rational to insure such agreements through contract. Tell me if I'm wrong.

[the questionist]

In an imaginary world without risks I would logically think that contracts are not necessary.

[Bud Struggle]

Ok TomK. Business to business, yours and mine, if we made a fairly large and valuable agreement of exchange, would you not already perceive risks in that?[quote] Ceetainly there would be risk.

[quote]I think its reasonable and agreement solidified for risk coverage if one or both of the parties in the agreement place high value on whatever is to be exchanged. Maybe.


Handshakes do work, this I know from sort of personal experience. In low-risk exchange handshakes or non contractual agreement is actually preferable I think. Say if I went on a vacation and I said I'd pay you some $100 bucks to check on my plants at my house, I think this could be done efficiently with a handshake. The costs of noncompliance is low for both of us and its a good way to build trust between us for future exchanges of possibly more value. The more trust that is established the less of a need for a contract I think.

Now, if I wanted to sell you wanted to rent me your garage or sell me your $30,000 car and I agree to pay monthly for it, then I think the risk premium is much higher and I think its rather rational to insure such agreements through contract. Tell me if I'm wrong.

No I agree here--but in the end you either had a deal or you didn't--one guy was cheating. People do that--and I understand the problem, but business is done for real reasons--you can SEE why the guy wants your land. You have a real need for the money that he'll give you.

Seriously--business decisions are made for COMPLETELY different reasons that personal decisions are made.

And to do business well you need relationships. I guess it'a all about how you do business--if you do oneies and twosies-I might think about insuring--but for long term relationships--it would be an insult. Anyway if I or the person I was doing business with defaulted--they'd be ruined forever.

That's the real insurance.

In the end--I guess it depends on the kind of business you are in.

[the questionist]

[quote=the questionist;1244318]Ok TomK. Business to business, yours and mine, if we made a fairly large and valuable agreement of exchange, would you not already perceive risks in that?[quote] Ceetainly there would be risk.

Maybe.



No I agree here--but in the end you either had a deal or you didn't--one guy was cheating. People do that--and I understand the problem, but business is done for real reasons--you can SEE why the guy wants your land. You have a real need for the money that he'll give you.

Seriously--business decisions are made for COMPLETELY different reasons that personal decisions are made.

And to do business well you need relationships. I guess it'a all about how you do business--if you do oneies and twosies-I might think about insuring--but for long term relationships--it would be an insult. Anyway if I or the person I was doing business with defaulted--they'd be ruined forever.

That's the real insurance.

In the end--I guess it depends on the kind of business you are in.I understand where you're coming from. I actually run a business.:D
I was pointing out that once 'good will' is established then contractual agreements can be a lot looser and perhaps not even necessary depending on how we both view the risk premium. I've done many deals with exactly a a handshake and had only one person default. Fortunately the costs were low and it ended up hurting him more than me.

The contractual liabilities or collateral raises the costs of noncompliance and this is a good thing depending on the nature of your business. Often times I had to do business with people I didn't know very well and neither of us would deal without the contract , perfectly understandable. Its not a sheer fire way of ensuring smooth transactions all the time but the incentives are to play nice. ;)

[Flash]

Ron Paul is not even a real libertarian and disagrees with the LP platform on key issues, like immigration.


For one you don't have to agree 100% with a party platform. Otherwise Bob Barr and many other Libertarians wouldn't 'Libertarian'. And according to you, only few people in the LP are actually Libertarians since most don't believe government-owned roads are a Socialist disaster.

[the questionist]

The Libertarian Party has turned into the Republican-lite party.
Ron Paul appears to have contradictory positions. On the one hand he wants freedom for millions of people while still maintaining a coercive monopoly over several institution. On the other hand he wants to put a gun to millions of people's heads and force them back across the border.

I think his 'old republic' patriotism destroys his own premise.

[Flash]

The Libertarian Party has turned into the Republican-lite party.
Ron Paul appears to have contradictory positions. On the one hand he wants freedom for millions of people while still maintaining a coercive monopoly over several institution. On the other hand he wants to put a gun to millions of people's heads and force them back across the border.

I think his 'old republic' patriotism destroys his own premise.

Ron Paul's weakness on illegal immigration is the thing that gets him in trouble with Conservatives. He says its unrealistic to deport all of them and believes that everyone is merely scapegoating them.
I see no reason why they should be in America, and I especially hate it when the Left says anyone that doesn't want open borders is a secret racist. Yeah lets fill our nation with millions of illiterate third worlders from Latin America and Africa, thats a great idea. Lets get some middle easterners that follow the Shariah law too, what great diversity.

[the questionist]

Ron Paul's weakness on illegal immigration is the thing that gets him in trouble with Conservatives. He says its unrealistic to deport all of them and believes that everyone is merely scapegoating them.
I see no reason why they should be in America, and I especially hate it when the Left says anyone that doesn't want open borders is a secret racist. Yeah lets fill our nation with millions of illiterate third worlders from Latin America and Africa, thats a great idea. Lets get some middle easterners that follow the Shariah law too, what great diversity.

To be sure, I more or less support the free market, probably in the sense that market anarchists define it. Having said that, I do agree with the Left when they say borders are inherently bigoted and racist. Absolutely. How could they not be? Because on what objective standard are you judging the illegals? The fact that you're born on a landmass called "America" doesn't make you any less human than those born several kilometers away from you in "Mexico."

National borders don't exist in material reality. They are ideas in people's heads and claim to have some inherent virtue where there is none. In reality illegals are just people moving from one place to another, thats it. Its important to gain some empathy here.

If your argument is that illegals will come here , infiltrate our culture, and spread their influence, then that falls on its face I think. Because I don't think Juan selling oranges on the street corner is the one to worry about when it comes to challenging your rights. Its likely a white politician in power. You would have to deny your own ancestors legitimacy over this land if they are white or the whole 'white culture.' Whites came here aggressively, obliterated the native populace and reduced them to welfare-craving pockets of trash land dwellers.

If you're worried about illiterate people or people that don't contribute to the 'social wheel' then I don't see why you're not advocating the expulsion of children. I mean children are net consumers , don't produce anything , many of them are illiterate compared to adults, they fit all the criteria but I suppose you have a problem getting rid of them. Then again they aren't African or Latino which means you segregate based on race, this is racism and bigotry.

How about the many Hispanics that actually produce wealth in the economy relative to all those American citizens enslaved by the welfare state? They produce relatively little or nothing at all, should we also deport them?

[IcarusAngel]

I think a society of contracts would completely suck. Most people don't like the contracts they're in now, why would they want more. Simple agreements makes a lot more sense; it's more like what you would find in the state of nature. Those who renaged on agreements would come to be distrusted.

The problem with contracts is that you could be forced into them because of your finnancial situation, but the punishment for violating them might be excessively harsh. Say you find out that what you're contracted to do is immoral according to your beliefs - you shouldn't then be forced into it.

And Libertarians cannot be taken seriously until they start producing things of value; until they become constructive members of society.

Several pages and we still can't find a Libertarian Einstein.

And which Libertarians opposed racism, and fought for civil rights the way that socialists did in the 1920s.

Which Libertarians ever marched and fought, and died for the rights of workers to be treated humanely?

Who are the Libertarians that battled with the nazis in their own countries, like the communist resistence bands did?

None.

[IcarusAngel]

To be sure, I more or less support the free market, probably in the sense that market anarchists define it. Having said that, I do agree with the Left when they say borders are inherently bigoted and racist. Absolutely. How could they not be? Because on what objective standard are you judging the illegals? The fact that you're born on a landmass called "America" doesn't make you any less human than those born several kilometers away from you in "Mexico."

Would you support a world government, if the government was designed to be smaller and less intrusive than the US government?

What would a "world population" look like.

The fact are as follows: we are all human-beings, regardless of country. World governments have existed in the past, and could exist again. More people have died under "nation-states" from wars than any other type of international-system.

I think world government would reduce ethnic conflicts, in the same way that when the Federal government in the US declared an end to racial segregation, there was more integretation (except in some places in the South, which actually got more segregated).

[Flash]

The fact that you're born on a landmass called "America" doesn't make you any less human than those born several kilometers away from you in "Mexico."

Being human doesn't necessarily mean that we could all be united under one nation. The people from Mexico for the most part don't have the same Western values as we do. Their government is full of corruption and their streets are littered with gang violence. Yet when they come to America, the first thing illegals propose is taking a chunk of South-Western American land and bringing it to the Mexican nation. Don't say its just a fringe minority, because all the illegal-alien protest videos I've seen show posters of 'Aztland'.

What I am worried about is hoards of illegals coming to America that view the Founding Fathers as 'racists' and 'bigots' and thus dismiss the Constitution as a 'white racist document'.


If your argument is that illegals will come here , infiltrate our culture, and spread their influence, then that falls on its face I think. Because I don't think Juan selling oranges on the street corner is the one to worry about when it comes to challenging your rights.

Its government handouts and the welfare state. I think Americans WILL do these jobs that the illegals do, however the Average American won't work 2 dollars an hour to pick fruit.

[Robert]

Whites came here aggressively, obliterated the native populace and reduced them to welfare-craving pockets of trash land dwellers.

Guilty.

[Flash]

Would you support a world government, if the government was designed to be smaller and less intrusive than the US government?

What would a "world population" look like.

The fact are as follows: we are all human-beings, regardless of country. World governments have existed in the past, and could exist again. More people have died under "nation-states" from wars than any other type of international-system.

I think world government would reduce ethnic conflicts, in the same way that when the Federal government in the US declared an end to racial segregation, there was more integretation (except in some places in the South, which actually got more segregated).


There can never be a world government. Nations have existed culturally different from each other for thousands of years. That is why Multiculturilism fails. They (multiculturilists) believe that they can deny thousands of years of culture and ethnic heritage just because we're all human.
When the old USSR broke up, the Turkic people went back to their own ethnic/cultural borders. And even now with this South Ossetian situation, you can see the Ossetians fightign to break free from old Communist-installed borders.

World government wouldn't reduce ethnic conflict. Only increase them, like the LA black vs. Latino gang conflicts. Pakistanis/Indians, Iranians/Arabs, etc.. will keep hating each other.

[the questionist]

I think a society of contracts would completely suck. Most people don't like the contracts they're in now, why would they want more. Simple agreements makes a lot more sense; it's more like what you would find in the state of nature. Those who renaged on agreements would come to be distrusted.

The problem with contracts is that you could be forced into them because of your finnancial situation, but the punishment for violating them might be excessively harsh. Say you find out that what you're contracted to do is immoral according to your beliefs - you shouldn't then be forced into it.

And Libertarians cannot be taken seriously until they start producing things of value; until they become constructive members of society.

Several pages and we still can't find a Libertarian Einstein.

And which Libertarians opposed racism, and fought for civil rights the way that socialists did in the 1920s.

Which Libertarians ever marched and fought, and died for the rights of workers to be treated humanely?

Who are the Libertarians that battled with the nazis in their own countries, like the communist resistence bands did?

None.

It depends on who the arbiter of contracts are and the court system doesn't do a great job for the average person with an average income. I think a large part of this is because theres a monopolized system of dispute resolution currently.

If both parties were free to specify certain musts in the contract then I don't think it would be a problem. The court system is largely to blame for this I believe.

I think comparing individuals that identify as political Libertarians with the actual libertarian philosophy might be a bit fallacious. I could easily compare some brutal communist individuals ( or at least people that claimed to support communism) or point out that in communist countries the death toll of people was very high and use this as an argument against communism but it might be fallacious.

Political Libertarians have achieved little, this is certainly true. The political Libertarians were supposed to shrink the state or at least prevent it from growing but we see the opposite has happened. We now have this massive state , militarism , welfare enslavement, and more govt largess. Political Libertarians have definitely failed but thats a failure of sticking to principle by Libertarians just like with Communists I'm sure.

[Jazzratt]

I see no reason why they should be in America, and I especially hate it when the Left says anyone that doesn't want open borders is a secret racist. Yeah lets fill our nation with millions of illiterate third worlders from Latin America and Africa, thats a great idea. Lets get some middle easterners that follow the Shariah law too, what great diversity.

Yeah, you're right. It's stupid that we think they're secret racists, when it's obvious that they're out and out racists ("millions of illiterate third worlders", I mean for fuck's sake).

[the questionist]

Would you support a world government, if the government was designed to be smaller and less intrusive than the US government?

What would a "world population" look like.

The fact are as follows: we are all human-beings, regardless of country. World governments have existed in the past, and could exist again. More people have died under "nation-states" from wars than any other type of international-system.

I think world government would reduce ethnic conflicts, in the same way that when the Federal government in the US declared an end to racial segregation, there was more integretation (except in some places in the South, which actually got more segregated).

I would not support a world govt. I think stateless societies probably make more sense. The U.N. is the closest thing we have to a World Govt right now and it is just a big money laundering scheme used to prop up dictators, particularly in third world countries.

I'm against coercion and prefer voluntarism and I do see a world govt as a large network of coercion. What altruistic individuals could possibly exist that logically could have authority over other human beings and could even exercise that authority responsibly? I doubt any could exist since having that much power lures the worst among us to the highest rungs of government.

Fundamentally we agree on the premise that nation states are flawed and all human beings are fundamentally the same. But our conclusions are different. It is precisely because I believe in the universality of human beings that I reject government in principle. Objectively I could see no reason why one should be able to coerce another and not have it reciprocated.

[Flash]

Yeah, you're right. It's stupid that we think they're secret racists, when it's obvious that they're out and out racists ("millions of illiterate third worlders", I mean for fuck's sake).

Thats not really racism though. I wouldn't want millions of poor polish people somehow finding a way to come to America illegally.

[the questionist]

Being human doesn't necessarily mean that we could all be united under one nation. The people from Mexico for the most part don't have the same Western values as we do. Their government is full of corruption and their streets are littered with gang violence. Yet when they come to America, the first thing illegals propose is taking a chunk of South-Western American land and bringing it to the Mexican nation. Don't say its just a fringe minority, because all the illegal-alien protest videos I've seen show posters of 'Aztland'.

What I am worried about is hoards of illegals coming to America that view the Founding Fathers as 'racists' and 'bigots' and thus dismiss the Constitution as a 'white racist document'.



Its government handouts and the welfare state. I think Americans WILL do these jobs that the illegals do, however the Average American won't work 2 dollars an hour to pick fruit.


Its because we are human individuals , fundamentally the same in our properties, that concepts of nations to divide humans , especially on moral grounds ( right and wrong) are patently ridiculous and an object of bigoted fantasy.

Many people in Mexico live a miserable life. Its not because they volunteer to live this way ( if they did , then they wouldn't flee), and its not because they aren't white or western , its because they have guns pointed at them by their own governments. Remember, European settlers came to this land for the same reason as they saw governments back home had the knife a little too close to their throats. Mexico rulers decided to become the first communist country ( or they called it 'communist') and it totally wrecked any progress and set them ages behind.

Still, you have no 'god-given' right because your accidentally born somewhere. How bigoted is it to base personal virtue on where you mother happened to squat and spit you out? Oh, she spit you out on a landmass people call America , you're 'American' now , so virtuous, its really funny actually. Based on that you have a right to move around here and work without the threat of violence not comparable to the violence that threatens people born a little south.

And this myth of the founding fathers and this piece of paper called the constitution. As if a paper reflecting some old-timers' ideas is the source of your freedom? That your freedom can only exist within a government of rulers? Fundamentally contradictory.

No doubt the Dec of Independence was some beautiful writing but it really didn't mean much. I mean Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, this is a fact. Clearly he did not want to extend his ideas of liberty to women and non-whites. Neither did any of the other founding fathers. They were just men that had a relatively successful experiment that quickly fell to the same old ruling class methods of traditional Europe , what they tried to escape.

[Jazzratt]

Thats not really racism though. I wouldn't want millions of poor polish people somehow finding a way to come to America illegally.

Yeah, because there's never been racist bigotry by white people against other white people for stupid and arbitrary reasons, has there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism)?

I suppose that, were these "millions" coming to "your" country you would "...like the roman... seem to see the river tiber forming with much blood" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_blood) as one, wonderful man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell) once put it.

[Flash]

Its because we are human individuals , fundamentally the same in our properties, that concepts of nations to divide humans , especially on moral grounds ( right and wrong) are patently ridiculous and an object of bigoted fantasy.

Thats where I always disagree with Libertarians. They think we all should think of ourselves as individuals but that won't ever happen. People have their own pride and cultural heritage that they want to protect, and not let it disappear just because of multiculturilism. Not just Westerners but non-Western people too.


Many people in Mexico live a miserable life. Its not because they volunteer to live this way ( if they did , then they wouldn't flee), and its not because they aren't white or western , its because they have guns pointed at them by their own governments. Remember, European settlers came to this land for the same reason as they saw governments back home had the knife a little too close to their throats. Mexico rulers decided to become the first communist country ( or they called it 'communist') and it totally wrecked any progress and set them ages behind.

Thats why its so mysterious why Mexican illegal immigrants want unite to parts of the United States and Mexico under the same political entity. You can complain about how bad the Mexican government is but its the Mexican peoples' fault for letting it happen. Now instead of staying and trying to fix their country they just come to America illegally and claim to be the native descendents of this land. Now on a nother note, the Mexican people have mixed Iberian and Amerindian ancestry. HOWEVER the natives of America and Canada aren't the same native tribes from Mexican area.


Still, you have no 'god-given' right because your accidentally born somewhere. How bigoted is it to base personal virtue on where you mother happened to squat and spit you out? Oh, she spit you out on a landmass people call America , you're 'American' now , so virtuous, its really funny actually. Based on that you have a right to move around here and work without the threat of violence not comparable to the violence that threatens people born a little south.

You could always legally move to America. By illegally getting here you are breaking the law. And being born in different places isn't the only thing that divides humanity. Its different cultures and values that go along with it. Some Zulu in Africa isn't the same as a Northern Japanese citizen. Every culture has a different outlook on life and philosophy. Allowing Middle Easterners to flood Europe just because 'they're human' doesn't make sense and denies thousands of years of individual cultures.


And this myth of the founding fathers and this piece of paper called the constitution. As if a paper reflecting some old-timers' ideas is the source of your freedom?

The Constitution just enforces these natural freedoms. They could've decided to become monarchists of America and create a new empire. But they decided to create a Republic and let the people have the ultimate decisions. Its up to the people to keep it.


That your freedom can only exist within a government of rulers? Fundamentally contradictory.

Anarchism could never work. How else are you going to have freedom?


I mean Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, this is a fact. Clearly he did not want to extend his ideas of liberty to women and non-whites. Neither did any of the other founding fathers. They were just men that had a relatively successful experiment that quickly fell to the same old ruling class methods of traditional Europe , what they tried to escape.


"Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate, than that these people are to be free; nor is it less certain that the two races, equally free, cannot live in the same government."

-- Thomas Jefferson


"It will probably be asked, why not retain and incorporate the blacks into the states . . . . ? Deep-rooted prejudices entertained by the whites; the thousands recollections, by the blacks, of the injuries they have sustained; new provacations; the real distinctions which nature has made; and many other circumstances, will divide us into two parties, and produce convlusions, which will probably never end but in the extermination of one or the other race."

-- Thomas Jefferson


Its clear that Thomas Jefferson believed in freedom for Western people and believed the African population should be sent back to Africa. It is obvious that those who admire the founding fathers for giving us a Republic aren't secretly holding a prejudice to African-Americans. Even though they were against giving blacks equal rights.

[Flash]

Yeah, because there's never been racist bigotry by white people against other white people for stupid and arbitrary reasons, has there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Irish_racism)?

I suppose that, were these "millions" coming to "your" country you would "...like the roman... seem to see the river tiber forming with much blood" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rivers_of_blood) as one, wonderful man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enoch_Powell) once put it.

The fact is no one wants their nation to be swamped with illegal immigrants that leach off of government handouts and commit crime. If you want to be an American, become one LEGALLY.

[IcarusAngel]

I would not support a world govt.

But you have no good reason for opposing it.


I think stateless societies probably make more sense.

Stateless societies such as?


The U.N. is the closest thing we have to a World Govt right now and it is just a big money laundering scheme used to prop up dictators, particularly in third world countries.

The UN is an intergovernmental organization, not a "world government." It has no authority to act as a world government.

Second, the UN has supported and brought democracy to far more third world countries than the United States ever has. Furthermore, if you knew anything about International-Relations, you'd know that nation-states, particularly the ones bordering on imperialism or hegemony (US and Russia), have been the leading cause of creating dictatorial satellites.


I'm against coercion and prefer voluntarism and I do see a world govt as a large network of coercion. What altruistic individuals could possibly exist that logically could have authority over other human beings and could even exercise that authority responsibly? I doubt any could exist since having that much power lures the worst among us to the highest rungs of government.

Fundamentally we agree on the premise that nation states are flawed and all human beings are fundamentally the same. But our conclusions are different. It is precisely because I believe in the universality of human beings that I reject government in principle. Objectively I could see no reason why one should be able to coerce another and not have it reciprocated.

This makes little sense. If humans are universal, they should have one government alone - preferably a democratic one.

[Nusocialist]

Sounds like Self-Owner is suddenly adopting left-libertarian tenants to argue against - left-libertarians? I don't know of any right-libertarian that advocates for the end of corporations, but anyone is allowed to bring a well-known example to this thread; from all the studying I've done (which may rightly pale in comparison to Self-Owner), they believe only that companies shouldn't be directly subsidized by the state. Friedman, Rothbard, Rand, Rockwell, and Von Mises all defended incorporation benefits, even if they occur in an "anarchist" society.
.
I don't think Rothbard and perhaps Rockwell defended corporations by state fiat.

This thread is silly. I'm not the greatest fan of alot of American style or rightwing libertarians but I'm sick of all the dishonesty and bile in political debates. Let's try and discuss the issues and realtiy rather than score cheap points.

[IcarusAngel]

This thread is silly. I'm not the greatest fan of alot of American style or rightwing libertarians but I'm sick of all the dishonesty and bile in political debates. Let's try and discuss the issues and realtiy rather than score cheap points.

No one is preventing you from discussing the "issues" on this forum - you're free to create a thread and discussion your problems with American libertarians.

By the way, care to point out where you have a responsible thread dealing with the right-wing American "Libertarian" fascists?

Second, how is it dishonest?

I listed several Libertarian-Socialists (or people with near libertarian-socialists beliefs), I pointed out that a Libertarian-Socialist was a great mathematician and another one is the most highly cited living scholar. This shows that people with far, extreme leftist beliefs can still contribute a great deal to humanity.

There are really two forces out there that guide us personally: constructive passions and impulses, and destructive passions. A constructive contribution to humanity is one that can be shared with everybody: science, art, math, and so on. A destructive passion is one that can be shared by yourself alone, that only you benefit from.

Since American Libertarians are driven by destructive impulses, it figures they'd be useless.

Furthermore, while Libertarians claim that "blacks," "leftists," "homosexuals" and others are have some flaw to them, we could just as eaisly judge them, and their failure to be useful at all to society or even in the electoral process.

Please do not respond to threads when you have nothing intelligent to add to them.

[Nusocialist]

No one is preventing you from discussing the "issues" on this forum - you're free to create a thread and discussion your problems with American libertarians.

By the way, care to point out where you have a responsible thread dealing with the right-wing American "Libertarian" fascists?
I don't think that is relevant, just the like term fascist as you use it isn't relevant.



Second, how is it dishonest?

I listed several Libertarian-Socialists (or people with near libertarian-socialists beliefs), I pointed out that a Libertarian-Socialist was a great mathematician and another one is the most highly cited living scholar. This shows that people with far, extreme leftist beliefs can still contribute a great deal to humanity.

There are really two forces out there that guide us personally: constructive passions and impulses, and destructive passions. A constructive contribution to humanity is one that can be shared with everybody: science, art, math, and so on. A destructive passion is one that can be shared by yourself alone, that only you benefit from.

Since American Libertarians are driven by destructive impulses, it figures they'd be useless.

Furthermore, while Libertarians claim that "blacks," "leftists," "homosexuals" and others are have some flaw to them, we could just as eaisly judge them, and their failure to be useful at all to society or even in the electoral process.

It is dishonest because it is silly and meaningful premise. To alot of people libertarian socialists or anarchist are destructive, to many are just those guys who used to throw bombs and now break glass. But mostly it is dishonest because it is scoring cheap points with meaningless drivel. Also you seem to be almost saying all rightwing libertarians are almost congenitally inferior, apparently they are "driven" by destructive impulses. Do you mean this is in their nature or learned?


Please do not respond to threads when you have nothing intelligent to add to them.Please don't start them.

[freakazoid]

And Libertarians cannot be taken seriously until they start producing things of value; until they become constructive members of society.

Several pages and we still can't find a Libertarian Einstein.

And which Libertarians opposed racism, and fought for civil rights the way that socialists did in the 1920s.

Which Libertarians ever marched and fought, and died for the rights of workers to be treated humanely?

Who are the Libertarians that battled with the nazis in their own countries, like the communist resistence bands did?

None.So by your reasoning Nazis can be taken seriously, and also Christians?
What does "contributing" have to do with anything!?


A destructive passion is one that can be shared by yourself alone, that only you benefit from.How is that "destructive"?



Since American Libertarians are driven by destructive impulses, it figures they'd be useless.So believing in a minimalist government is "destructive"?


Furthermore, while Libertarians claim that "blacks," "leftists," "homosexuals" and others are have some flaw to them,Did it hurt pulling that shit out of your ass?

And I am confused, are you saying a world government is a good thing? I thought you called yourself an anarchist. :confused:


edit - I almost forgot, Penn and Teller are libertarians.

[IcarusAngel]

Yes, I think world government would be better than nation states, and yes, I think American-Libertarianism would be totalitarianism, again, not "small government."

Protecting capitalism is not a small government and the US has the largest government in history in terms of its power and interesting.

Yes, I do favor anarchy, which is exactly why I oppose libertarians. However, I think anarchy only would work if there was more of a world wide movement for it, in much the same way communism should work.

[IcarusAngel]

I don't think that is relevant, just the like term fascist as you use it isn't relevant.

It isn't "irrelevant" to note that American libertarians have a lot in common with the characteristics of fascism - namely, private ownership of the means of production.

Fascism is really an extention of capitalism.


It is dishonest because it is silly and meaningful premise. To alot of people libertarian socialists or anarchist are destructive...

And this can be shown to be false because numerous anarchists have been CONSTRUCTIVE.

And of course there have been destructive anarchists as well. However, they are nowhere near as destructive as the corporations, the judicial system, the American government, and so on and so forth.


Also you seem to be almost saying all rightwing libertarians are almost congenitally inferior, apparently they are "driven" by destructive impulses. Do you mean this is in their nature or learned?
Please don't start them.

I do see them as advocates of an inferior theory - and I do think most conservatives are destructive, not constructive. There are only one or two conservatives that I like, none of them "Libertarians."

I think their society, the society of Hayek, would be as George Orwell described it - even worse than fascism (see his review of his work). An anarcho-capitalist/libertarian society would be so tyrannical it would immediately destroy itself.

[IcarusAngel]

edit - I almost forgot, Penn and Teller are libertarians.

Penn and Teller also run a reactionary program on Showtime where they defend capitalism and claim second hand smoke is non-harmful.

And by the way, ALL leftist theories oppose capitalism as being totalitarian, even leftist reformers who advocate a kind of totalitarianism in return (i.e. Stalinists).

There is not a single leftist theory that is compatible with American libertarianism - least of all anarchism, who were opposing the state protecting private property as just another tyranny, i.e. Proudhon:

"Capital"... in the political field is analogous to "government"... The economic idea of capitalism, the politics of government or of authority, and the theological idea of the Church are three identical ideas, linked in various ways. To attack one of them is equivalent to attacking all of them . . . What capital does to labour, and the State to liberty, the Church does to the spirit."

(Proudhon, anarchist and likely founder of nearly all modern leftist anarchist theory.)

He is clearly saying that protecting private property -what libertarians advocate, is tyrannical.

So, in Proudhon's view, Libertarians would be authoritarian, and totalitarian.

It's not that hard to understand.

[freakazoid]

It isn't "irrelevant" to note that American libertarians have a lot in common with the characteristics of fascism - namely, private ownership of the means of production.

You do realize that libertarians would fight any would be fascist takeover right?


Penn and Teller also run a reactionary program on Showtime where they defend capitalism and claim second hand smoke is non-harmful.

It's not.


There is not a single leftist theory that is compatible with American libertarianism - least of all anarchism,

The government having no right to tell you how to live your life is anti-anarchist?

[Nusocialist]

It isn't "irrelevant" to note that American libertarians have a lot in common with the characteristics of fascism - namely, private ownership of the means of production.

Fascism is really an extention of capitalism.So fascsm have alot in common even with varieties of libertarian socialism like mutualism.





And this can be shown to be false because numerous anarchists have been CONSTRUCTIVE.

And of course there have been destructive anarchists as well. However, they are nowhere near as destructive as the corporations, the judicial system, the American government, and so on and so forth.

That is probably correct but I don't see how making silly claims helps us.



I do see them as advocates of an inferior theory - and I do think most conservatives are destructive, not constructive. There are only one or two conservatives that I like, none of them "Libertarians."

I think their society, the society of Hayek, would be as George Orwell described it - even worse than fascism (see his review of his work). An anarcho-capitalist/libertarian society would be so tyrannical it would immediately destroy itself.That may well be true, but I think we should debunk it like grown ups and personally with civility, not suggest they are all destructive and haven't done anything for humanity, it is irrelevant for a start to the actual theory being an ad hominem.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

You do realize that libertarians would fight any would be fascist takeover right?They didn't do too good of a job with Pinochet. Killing and torturing Leftists in favor of rigid market "freedom" was more important.

[Black Dagger]

Who are the self-identifying libertarians or anarcho-capitalists of OI at the moment? I've got a few questions i would like to ask you.

Thanks

[pusher robot]

Who are the self-identifying libertarians or anarcho-capitalists of OI at the moment? I've got a few questions i would like to ask you.

Thanks

Yeah right, like we'd fall for that.

Oops...

[Black Dagger]

:confused:

I was talking to/about people who are already restricted.

[EvigLidelse]

They didn't do too good of a job with Pinochet. Killing and torturing Leftists in favor of rigid market "freedom" was more important.


So are we supposed to defend Pinochet now? He was actually at first running for communism just like the big guys like Stalin, but the men from Chicago University made him change his mind. Remember that he was a general from the start, a dictator, a junta ruled the country the whole time. That's nothing I'd advocate.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

He was actually at first running for communism just like the big guys like StalinHe came to power as an anti-communist. A bunch of Chicago school advocates were on the verge of crying when they heard about this monster's death. One thread started on the Ron Paul forums called a "libertarian dictatorship" being better than a socialist democracy. Excuse me for not believing that libertarians wouldn't sell out liberty in a heartbeat for capitalism. They do try to convince us all the time that they're identical.

I wasn't arguing you were necessarily defending Pinochet. I was pointing out that libertarians have - historically - supported fascists.


Remember that he was a general from the start, a dictator, a junta ruled the country the whole time. That's nothing I'd advocate.I'm highly suspicious of what you do support with a neo-liberal like Milton Friedman residing peacefully in your signature. Friedman, like many of his peers, mistakes "market association" with "free association." Markets can be free, and they can be forced, and some things shouldn't be commodities in any circumstance - like land and people.


The government having no right to tell you how to live your life is anti-anarchist?While promoting authoritarian property systems which would only take over the function of a state? If you haven't already, browse around Mises.org. People on that forum vehemently defend the notion that "first come, first serve" is a fair method of acquiring property, even if I'm sent into starvation. I appreciate some work that comes out of the Austrian school (even if it is a reiteration of Tucker and Spooner), but it's batshit crazy.

Libertarianism isn't necessarily reactionary, especially if we're talking about left-libertarians. Before Rothbard became a reactionary prick and started calling for restrictions on immigration and a protection of corporations, his anarcho-capitalism was halfway decent. But the Friedman family, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Ayn Rand have a lot to account for. David Friedman is the biggest joke "anarchism" has to offer, with his concept of competing against illegitimate property systems while it still being anarchism.

[freakazoid]

They didn't do too good of a job with Pinochet

I don't remember Pinochet ever trying a fascist takeover in the US.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

http://blogs.zdnet.com/open-source/images/strawman.jpg

[EvigLidelse]

One thread started on the Ron Paul forums called a "libertarian dictatorship" being better than a socialist democracy. Excuse me for not believing that libertarians wouldn't sell out liberty in a heartbeat for capitalism. They do try to convince us all the time that they're identical.

Hahaha, what the? Chile was never good, they did grow economically from a severe stagflation, but the unemployment was just crazy. Just.. Huh? :laugh:



I wasn't arguing you were necessarily defending Pinochet. I was pointing out that libertarians have - historically - supported fascists.

And thus you have to generalize and say that all of us do?



I'm highly suspicious of what you do support with a neo-liberal like Milton Friedman residing peacefully in your signature. Friedman, like many of his peers, mistakes "market association" with "free association." Markets can be free, and they can be forced, and some things shouldn't be commodities in any circumstance - like land and people.

Just because I quoted him I have to defend all off his ideas? He has said some smart things, got some good ideas, some bad. I see many communists quoting Stalin and still dislike him etc.

I only see Milton as one of many contributors of thoughts that the new generation, us, are meant to destroy, erase or improve.

[Jazzratt]

I don't remember Pinochet ever trying a fascist takeover in the US.
[/font]

Prominent US libertarians supported him

Are you sure you're a leftist? I mean you hate the idea of keeping poor people alive (welfare, free healthcare, free schooling and so on), public sector workers (teachers, doctors and so on) earning any sort of living wage (wages taken from taxes, remember), support the absolute worst capitalism has to offer (free-market libertarians) and are a christian fundamentalist. None of this gives me any confidence that you're on the side of the workers.

[Self-Owner]

Libertarianism isn't necessarily reactionary, especially if we're talking about left-libertarians. Before Rothbard became a reactionary prick and started calling for restrictions on immigration and a protection of corporations, his anarcho-capitalism was halfway decent. But the Friedman family, Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Ayn Rand have a lot to account for. David Friedman is the biggest joke "anarchism" has to offer, with his concept of competing against illegitimate property systems while it still being anarchism.


The thing is that some people on here (Icarus, ahem) seem to think that all libertarians are the same. You shouldn't be particularly surprised to know that a lot of us don't agree with some of the von Mises stuff like restricted immigration. I think you're wrong about David Friedman though, he is a very clear thinker (and given that he's a consequentialist I don't think what he writes about competing property systems is bad at all.)

[Self-Owner]

Prominent US libertarians supported him

Are you sure you're a leftist? I mean you hate the idea of keeping poor people alive (welfare, free healthcare, free schooling and so on), public sector workers (teachers, doctors and so on) earning any sort of living wage (wages taken from taxes, remember), support the absolute worst capitalism has to offer (free-market libertarians) and are a christian fundamentalist. None of this gives me any confidence that you're on the side of the workers.

I can't believe that you honestly think libertarians want poor people to die and teachers and doctors to starve. I realize you may think it's rhetorically convenient, but I can't believe you actually think it's true.

[Self-Owner]

Who are the self-identifying libertarians or anarcho-capitalists of OI at the moment? I've got a few questions i would like to ask you.

Thanks

Feel free (I guess if you wanted to ban me you could've by now anyway.)

[freakazoid]

Are you sure you're a leftist?Is this actually a serious question?


I mean you hate the idea of keeping poor people alive (welfare, free healthcare, free schooling and so on),Proof?


public sector workers (teachers, doctors and so on) earning any sort of living wage (wages taken from taxes, remember),

There are other ways besides taxes, ie. slavery.


support the absolute worst capitalism has to offer (free-market libertarians)Proof?


and are a christian fundamentalist.Proof?


None of this gives me any confidence that you're on the side of the workers.:rolleyes:

[Jazzratt]

Is this actually a serious question?

Yes. You employ right wing rhetoric (taxation as slavery, for example) and seem not to understand a lot of leftism, so it is a serious question.


Proof?

Welfare and free public services cost tax money, you dolt.


There are other ways besides taxes, ie. slavery.

Not in the current system there ain't and day-to-day that is where most workers live. I suppose you could sell off all the public services to privateers (like LIbertarians want to do), but of course that means you get a mess like there is in America where healthcare and other basic human necessities are unaffordable.


Proof?

This thread, where you have been vigorously defending the scum.


Proof?

You've said it yourself for fuck's sake.


:rolleyes:

Looking at your positions it's hard to believe that you are. To make a concrete example, here in Britian school teachers at comprehensives (sate-funded schools) are payed with tax money, because the whole school is state funded, recently they were given a wage "increase" at below the rate of inflation (a pay cut in real terms) and the NUT [large teachers' union] declared industrial action. Now, surely, as one who condemns any way of getting a better deal as either reformism or slavery there is no logical way you could side with the teachers, after all if their strike had failed it would have cost the taxpayer less than if it succeeded - thus making the terrible slavery a little more bearable.

[freakazoid]

Yes. You employ right wing rhetoric (taxation as slavery, for example)

I don't just say how it is I have shown how it is.


and seem not to understand a lot of leftism,

So? That is one of the reasons I come here, to learn. I learn new things all the time. I would imagine that a lot of people here do not understand a lot about it either. How many here understood everything when they got into it?


Welfare and free public services cost tax money, you dolt.

No no no. You said that I hate keeping poor people alive. So I ask for proof. Of course not only do I wish to keep them alive I wish for them to no longer be poor. And that is not through reformist action like taxes, but a complete revolution. I believe that things like welfare are actually more of a tool of the bourgeoisie in that it helps perpetuate there poorness and it also keeps us from actually having a revolution, it helps pacify the people. A sort of bread and circuses.


Not in the current system there ain't

The current system requires an armed insurrection.


like there is in America where healthcare and other basic human necessities are unaffordable.

Tell me about it. I have to pay $2,000, plus $500 deductible, for my surgery and that is AFTER the insurance.


This thread, where you have been vigorously defending the scum.

Apparently you missed my post on page 2 where I linked to this, http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-we-make-t87469/index.html?t=87469 And in that link I say,

"Like JimmyJazz said, there are different kinds of libertarians who are in it for different reasons, very nice post by the way, http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif. I also was a libertarian before I became an anarchist. During that time I believed that while it would be nice to live in an anarchist society it just wouldn't be possible because of how people where. Also I didn't have an opinion on economics, for me it was about being as free as possible, and getting back to how the US originally was seemed like the best idea."

I became an anarchist through libertarianism when I came to the conclusion that people don't even need a government, in fact having one makes things worse. I'm not "vigorously defending the scum", why don't you actually listen to what I say.


You've said it yourself for fuck's sake.

When did I EVER call myself a fundamentalist? Care to provide a link where I do?


Now, surely, as one who condemns any way of getting a better deal as either reformism or slavery there is no logical way you could side with the teachers,

Simply getting a better deal doesn't make something slavery, nor does it make something reformism.


To make a concrete example,...

If a lot the teachers where nazis would you support them? After all they would still be workers. If you side with the workers then you are also supporting the nazis. But if you don't side with them then you are hurting the workers. Or perhaps there is a third option. You can support the workers while also condemning the nazis. Just like in your example there is a third option. You can support the teachers for trying to get a better living wage for themselves, it's not your fault it is propped up through taxes. But you can also call for a revolution against the whole system itself. Another example besides the nazi one is this. Lets sort of use your teachers calling for a wage increase example but change it slightly. Say instead of money they received food. But that food was supplied through the work of slaves. Now the amount of food is no longer sufficient to support the teachers so they ask for an increase. Now using what you think I believe you can either only support the teachers, and therefore support slavery, or you support the slaves, and therefore not support the teachers which would mean hurting them.

Even if I didn't have a problem with reformism, taxes are still slavery and I have shown in this thread and that one in the past how it is.

[Shekky Shabazz]

I didn't see the two obvious questions asked the OP title has begged from browsing this, so here goes...

Define 'unproductive'

and

So what?

[IcarusAngel]

Freakazoid is clearly anti-Left-wing. That much is clear. To be left-wing means that you have to understand that capitalist held property is a theft from the workers, from everybody, and thus taxes are simply a way to get society to admit it and attempt to address the inequities of the market - in much the same way that taxes and regulations on slave owners would have been a step up from traditional chattel slavery.

(It's not taxes that are the theft, it is the government-backed property rights, and taxes are a way to get back what capitalists wrongfully stole from the workers. And if you're a middle class American, they can be seen to be an attempt to redistribute the theft of resources to the poor and others who have been disenfranchaised, as well as the third world workers who are disenfranchised so that we can live our elitist lifestyles.)

This is a very applicable analogy - in England and most countries, slavery was reformed out of existence. In the US, there had to be a Civil War to end it. So whether you take the "revoutionary" or the more reformist position that capitalism can be destroyed intellectual, you never actually favor giving the capitalist class more power.

What leftists debate is the means to help the workers, not the means to help business owners. I don't know about "restrictions," and don't think it should apply to anybody, but how freakazoid ever convinced anybody that he was left-wing is beyond me, but he clearly admits he came from a "Libertarian" position, and that is the position he holds.

His "Libertarianism" is far worse than his "christian anarchism," in other words.

[IcarusAngel]

I didn't see the two obvious questions asked the OP title has begged from browsing this, so here goes...

Define 'unproductive'

Already defined for you in this thread. Unproductive contributions are "contributions" that are done purely for selfish reasons and exist only to increase the profits of the capitalist class, and cannot be shared by all.

Scientific and intellectual contributions can be shared by all and even the lowest classes in America enjoy, at times, math, history, science, art, and so on, and there is no "intellectual property" and so on on them.

(Leftists might be interested to note that back in the day it was common for workers to read poetry, history, etc. to one another and Socialists thought it was essential that the working classes be educated to combat capitalist propaganda, lies, and errors in logic, writings books like "Mathematics for the Millions" and so on.)

A lot of things that currently exist in society are actually not that bad of products, like computer components, but they border on being contributions that are made based solely on selfishish reasons with the only benefactors being the capitalist class, whereas the work of computer scientists, say like on the internet, was for the benefit of an "information superhighway" that would benefit all.

So, we're actually talking about the scientific contributions to humanity, which is in and of itself a good (keep in mind bombs, guns, and so on, are closer to the engineering side of the equation), and then contributions that are semi-selfish/semi-beneficent.

Libertarians haven't contributed to either.


and

So what?

It matters because you're just a bunch of extremists yelling on the internet, supporting what essentially amounts to some kind of corporate fascism. It shows you can't be taken seriously, no matter what you're talking about - politics or otherwise.

It shows that even the "leaders" of Libertarianism, the ones that get to make up all the rules, have a kind of mental deficit when it comes to actually helping humanity.

[Bud Struggle]

Yes. You employ right wing rhetoric (taxation as slavery, for example) and seem not to understand a lot of leftism, so it is a serious question.


5000th post! Great.

[IcarusAngel]

So I ask for proof. Of course not only do I wish to keep them alive I wish for them to no longer be poor. And that is not through reformist action like taxes, but a complete revolution. I believe that things like welfare are actually more of a tool of the bourgeoisie in that it helps perpetuate there poorness and it also keeps us from actually having a revolution, it helps pacify the people. A sort of bread and circuses.


When England, the US, and other European countries had little to no taxation or regulations on the corporations, there were a lot more people in poverty.

Today, the US has lower tax rates than France etc., and the US has more people living in dire poverty, unable to afford even basic health insurance and California for instance has a 10-15% child poverty rate.

Who is going to take care of all these people when the government doesn't do it? Corporations? And how does it "perpetuate" their poverty, if anything it keeps them in poverty. And of course people will not be able to carry out this armed insurrection when they're so poor that they don't even have enough money to feed themselves or get the proper health care they need, and you conveniently leave out that the American anarchists and socialists fought for MORE taxes and regulations on corporations in the US.

The US also has less taxes and regulations than most European countries, and yet Sweden, Finland, France, the UK and so on are even MORE left-wing, while the US is more reactionary and right-wing.

It's not taxes that perpetuates the system, it's the media, the corporations, and so on.

If you remove taxes, what you're essentially saying that even MORE people need to starve, and even MORE people need to be put in poverty to start a revolution, and yet empirical evidence contradicts all this.

[freakazoid]

To be left-wing means that you have to understand that capitalist held property is a theft from the workers,Already know that.


and thus taxes are simply a way to get society to admit it and attempt to address the inequities of the market - in much the same way that taxes and regulations on slave owners would have been a step up from traditional chattel slavery.Would it be ok to make slaves out of the bourgeoisie?


(It's not taxes that are the theft, it is the government-backed property rights, and taxes are a way to get back what capitalists wrongfully stole from the workers. And if you're a middle class American, they can be seen to be an attempt to redistribute the theft of resources to the poor and others who have been disenfranchaised, as well as the third world workers who are disenfranchised so that we can live our elitist lifestyles.)That is why you have a revolution.


In the US, there had to be a Civil War to end it.Except that the Civil War wasn't about slavery, and it didn't end the oppression of blacks.


So whether you take the "revoutionary" or the more reformist position that capitalism can be destroyed intellectual, you never actually favor giving the capitalist class more power.But you don't resort to slavery to end it. How come the thought of slavery doesn't turn your stomach? It absolutely disgusts me.


but he clearly admits he came from a "Libertarian"Some here have said how they came from fascism and naziism. So what? Did you not read about why I was one and at the time I wasn't an anarchist? Or did you conveniently skip that part?


and that is the position he holds.Prove it or stop making baseless assertions.


When England, the US,... evidence contradicts all this.And yet none of that matters because it is still slavery. If Fascism greatly lowered poverty would you support it? Of course not, because it is still wrong! Would it of been ok to use a bunch of slaves to help everybody during Katrina? Because after all, it would be benefiting all of the poor people who's lives are now ruined because of it. Seeing as how you have completely ignored my reasoning for opposing taxes, that it is slavery, I can only come to the conclusion that you support slavery. I don't know about "restrictions," and don't think it should apply to anybody, but how IcarusAngel ever convinced anybody that he was anti-slavery is beyond me.

edit - It should be noted that I actually do not believe IcarusAngel to be pro slavery. I only put in remarks like that to show how stupid it is for him to claim me as anti-leftists without looking at why I believe what I believe. I understand why he thinks taxes are necessary, but he clearly shows that he does not understand why I believe that they are wrong. At least in the other thread Jazzratt showed why he believes that they are not slavery, even though I disagreed with his points, but IcarusAngel continues to ignore my reasoning and instead tries to make the baseless accusation that I am anti-leftist.

[IcarusAngel]

Already know that.

Would it be ok to make slaves out of the bourgeoisie?

The goal of the revolution is to kill the bourgeoisie, and I'd rather be a slave than be dead. But this is ridiculous anyway, as taxes are a means to get back what has been stolen from your labor.


But you don't resort to slavery to end it. disgusts me.

Taxes are not slavery. Taxes are an attempt to take back what the workers rightfully own. Because capitalists have more land and resources, that are a theft from everybody, and require the government to protect them more than they protect the workers, the government should tax them at a higher rate.

You fail to explain how taking back what's yours is "slavery."

And all leftists understand this. Even Marx called for high taxation, but he also noted that as capitalism gets more and more capitalist, or free-market, conditions will go down for the worker as wages get lower and lower, which is why he condemned them.

Other leftists understand that taxes are a way to provide incentives to workers, but they want capitalism ended immediately. However, in the mean time they also support curbing capitalism as well.


How come the thought of slavery doesn't turn your stomach? It absolutely

Capitalism does turn my stomach. I dislike capitalism, fascism, nazism, monarchism, and all other rightist theories. I've never been right-wing.

If slavery "turns your stomach" so much, you should have never been a Libertarian in the first place, who openly support capitalist slavery. As Bakunin noted "Capital is the source of all slavery," which is accurate, as slavery is profitable.

All Libertarians (the ones we're talking about in this thread) support capitalist slavery and all Libertarians want the government to protect their capitalistic system, except anarcho-capitalists, who want private mercenary forcers to do it, ala Somolia.

Milton Friedman was an utter tyrant, for example.

So, how long did you support Libertarian slavery, and why?


Some here have said how they came from fascism and naziism. So what? Did you not read about why I was one and at the time I wasn't an anarchist?

Well, I disagree that you are a left-anarchist, or any kind of an anarchist.

You don't seem to understand anarchist theory very well at all - anarchist despised the profit motive.


And yet none of that matters because it is still slavery. If Fascism greatly lowered poverty would you support it? Of course not, because it is still wrong!

Fascism actually does decrease poverty. Poverty went down in both Nazi Germany and in Italy.

The problem with fascism, aside from the nationalism and racism that are usually tied in with it, despicable ideologies, is that, like Libertarians, they are pro-property, they favor big corporations over the little guy, and they actually favored decreased taxation, just like Libertarians do.

For example, leftist political scientist notes:


Who did Mussolini and Hitler support once they seized state power? In both countries a strikingly similar agenda was pursued. Labor unions and strikes were outlawed, union property and publications were confiscated, farm cooperatives were handed over to rich private owners, big agribusiness farming was heavily subsidized. In both Germany and Italy the already modest wages of the workers were cut drastically; in Germany, from 25-40%; in Italy, 50%. In both countries the minimum wage laws, overtime pay, and factory safety regulations were abolished or turned into dead letters. Taxes were increased for the general populace, but lowered or eliminated for the rich and big business. Inheritance taxes for the wealthy were greatly reduced or abolished. Both Mussolini and Hitler showed their gratitude to their business patrons by handing over to them publicly owned and perfectly solvent steel mills, power plants, banks, steamship companies ("privatization," it's called here). Both regimes dipped heavily into the public treasury to refloat or subsidize heavy industry (corporate welfarism). Both states guaranteed a return on the capital invested by giant corporations and assumed most of the risks and losses on investment. (Sounds like S&Ls, doesn't it?)

http://sonic.net/~doretk/ArchiveARCHIVE/M%20P/Parenti%20on%20Fascism.html

This is closer to conservatism, Libertarianism, etc. or "Reaganism," where taxes were increased on the lowest class by 15%, and were reduced on the rich by a variety of means, like corporate welfare, and also a 15% reduction rate on their taxes.


Because after all, it would be benefiting all of the poor people who's lives are now ruined because of it. Seeing as how you have completely ignored my reasoning for opposing taxes, that it is slavery, I can only come to the conclusion that you support slavery.

No leftist supports the idea that taxes are "slavery," so your assumptions are false to begin with.

Leftism is about being sympathetic to the workers, and protecting their interests over the interests of the big corporations. This is usually done by opposing corporatism, fascism, right-wing "Libertarianism," and so on.

When leftists oppose taxes, they're only doing it under the condition that private property and everything else is eliminated along with them - but other leftists support taxation, such as Georgists, who support a ground rent on all owned land.

Leftists only quarrel with Georgists over the fact that Georgists support some ideas that are too capitalistic for them, not that they (the gerorgists, or geoists) support automatic taxation and property taxes.

In fact, leftists differ in who they regard as the bigger enemy:

For George Orwell, Noam Chomsky, and a few others, right-wing Libertarianism is even worse than fascism because it would destory society and kept everybody in extreme poverty.

this is certainly born out by the facts of history when capitalism actually existed.

For most other leftists, Fascism and state capitalism are the bigger enemies, although those other two tyrannies are bad as well.


I don't know about "restrictions," and don't think it should apply to anybody, but how IcarusAngel ever convinced anybody that he was anti-slavery is beyond me.

Of course, by leftist standards I am anti-slavery. By leftist standards, you are pro-slavery, or were at one period in your life, whereas I have never been.


At least in the other thread Jazzratt showed why he believes that they are not slavery, even though I disagreed with his points, but IcarusAngel continues to ignore my reasoning and instead tries to make the baseless accusation that I am anti-leftist.

I did explain why it's not slavery - and by the way I agree with Jazzratt's points anyway, which are similar to my own.

They are not slavery because it is not slavery to request what is yours. If someone steals from me, I have the right to get it back. The problem is, in a market economy, it's hard to tell exactly what amount was stolen, so it's hard to know what exactly you need to get back. For example, if someone stole my sandwich and ate it, I could never get the sandwich back, at least in its original form.

Thus, the capitalist, or the thief, owes a debt to me. One of the ways he can repay his debt is by taxes.

Another way, the revolution way, is by directly overthrowing the capitalists, or taking back what you own by force.

Either way isn't really slavery, it's an attempt to address the problem.

Me, I like to have my cake and eat it too, so I prefer both resolutions: Workers need to be healthy and happy before they're ever going to get back their resources, and so they should be taken care of in a capitalist economy. Neither one of them actually supports decreasing the standards for the workers, as you are calling for, by increasing capitalism, which is what eliminating taxes would do.

You, however, have taken the decidedly anti-left position of defending the out and out private tyranny that Libertarians advocate, claiming they somehow "oppose" fascism when the difference between capitalism and fascism is thinner by the day.

[freakazoid]

But this is ridiculous anyway, as taxes are a means to get back what has been stolen from your labor.

Even if I was to concede that taxes would not be slavery as long as it is used more as a way to take back what is yours, which right now I am not completely willing to do but it has been on my mind, even then I am not sure that I think that it is a good tactic to use. There was a thread a while back I had made asking about charity, http://www.revleft.com/vb/charity-t78647/index.html?t=78647 In it I was for charity because I belive that even though it doesn't change everything it still helps people till the change comes. Now it would appear to me that for the same reason I support charities is the about the same reason that you support taxes, in that even though it doesn't make the revolution it still helps people, although as you say taxes are more than that it would be also taking back what was stolen. What is interesting about that thread when I just re-read through it is that you had also posted in it, didn't remember that, and that you also just randomly attacked me in that thread to, have you always hated me?, and I still have no idea what it was that you were even trying to say. It appears in that thread that you are against charities, and yet it basically does the same thing as taxes. Now by what I mean on that taxes might not be a good tactic to use. Basically it is why TAT is against doing things like donating money to help those less fortunate is that you only make capitalism more tolerable. And by making capitalism tolerable you stifle the revolution. Now I'm not sure if I completely agree with it but it is something to think about.



You fail to explain how taking back what's yours is "slavery."

What I have explained is how taking money out of some workers paycheck is slavery. But if taxes are only taken from the bourgeoisie as a means to take back what was stolen then that is different, although if that is done then I doubt that the bourgeoisie would even really feel much of an effect from it because they will not be the ones taking the loss they will simply pass that costs of higher taxes onto there workers and consumers, another reason I think taxes are not a good tactic.



If slavery "turns your stomach" so much, you should have never been a Libertarian in the first place, who openly support capitalist slavery.

This right here shows that you still have no understanding on why I was a libertarian. I wasn't in it for the economics. I hadn't developed in that far yet. Shoot, it wasn't until sometime after I became an anarchist, and some time after I had been on this site that I even began to look at the economic part of anarchism. I was in it for my beliefs on liberty and justice, not on propoerty ownership.


For George Orwell, Noam Chomsky, and a few others, right-wing Libertarianism is even worse than fascism because it would destory society and kept everybody in extreme poverty.

Although you did just say earlier that in the fascist countries that poverty went down.

[IcarusAngel]

Well, I do see where you're coming from now. The problem I have with charity is that (1) they can be restrictive, like religious charities, and (2), it is asking capitalists to "give back" what they stole.

So charity is one of the weakest forms of getting back some resources.

If you're into "libertarianism" not for the economics, but for other reasons, then that is a Civil Libertarian. That is different from being a Libertarian who believes in a whole bunch of axioms that are baseless and asinine, like the ones the LP members believe in.


Although you did just say earlier that in the fascist countries that poverty went down.

Yes, my point there was that libertarianism would increase poverty, and thus some leftists despise it even more.

[freakazoid]

Well, I do see where you're coming from now.

:D


The problem I have with charity is that (1) they can be restrictive, like religious charities, and (2), it is asking capitalists to "give back" what they stole.

So charity is one of the weakest forms of getting back some resources.

I'm more into the direct action actually getting involved type of charities, not that I have ever actually done this though :(. I think it is better because you are actually getting involved and by doing so you 1, See the plight first hand. 2. It is communism/anarchy in action. And 3. You can make connections and build a network of like minded people.


If you're into "libertarianism" not for the economics, but for other reasons, then that is a Civil Libertarian.

Interestng. I've never heard that phrase before.


Yes, my point there was that libertarianism would increase poverty, and thus some leftists despise it even more.

I see, I didn't catch that you had actually said libertarianism and not fascism. I would say that fascism would be the far worse one. And that is because in its current form libertarianism is about small government and more freedom, even though it is still a capitalist society. Even though it is said that it will eventually turn to a fascist police state, in its current form it isn't. So the end result, fascism, is far worse than libertarianism. Fascism is a police state while libertarianism isn't.

On an interesting side note, I think that I am perhaps willing to concede that taxes, as long as it is used on the bourgeoisie to take back what was stolen and not on the working class, would not be slavery. I just started reading Thomas Paines , Rights of Man, and in one part of the introduction it says;

"Pain outlined a breathtaking economic program, as close to a welfare state as could be imagined in the eighteenth century. The basis of taxation would be changed from the regressive levies on consumption to a progressive tax on landed property. From the proceeds, every poor family would receive funds to enable it to raise and educate its children, a system of social security would be established, enabling workers to retire on a pension at age sixty, public employment would be provided for those in need of work, and funds would be appropriated for a decent burial to those who died in poverty. At the same time, laws limiting wages would be abolished, since workingmen ought to be free to 'make their own bargains' without interference from the state."